Download - Learning German Vocabulary: An Investigation into Learners

Learning German Vocabulary:

An Investigation into Learners‟ Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies

by

Ching-yi Lin

A thesis

presented to the University of Waterloo

in fulfillment of the

thesis requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

German

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2008

Ching-yi Lin 2008

ii

Author’s Declaration

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis,

including any required final revisions, as accepted by examiners. I understand that my thesis

may be made electronically available to the public.

iii

Abstract

This research is an empirical multiple-case study that is designed to explore adult

individual learners‟ vocabulary learning processes, and to examine their use of vocabulary

learning strategies. It investigates the following key questions: (1) What vocabulary learning

strategies do the individual learners usually use to find the meaning of unknown words? (2)

What vocabulary learning strategies do the individual learners usually use to consolidate the

words? (3) How do the individual learners apply the vocabulary learning strategies for the

purposes mentioned above? (4) What are the differences between the learners‟ use of

vocabulary learning strategies? By using multiple data collection methods – questionnaires,

interviews, and think-aloud protocols – I not only investigate what strategies the individual

research participants use to study vocabulary, but also look at how they actually employ the

strategies while completing a series of vocabulary activities. Finally, I also compare the

patterns in the use of strategies between the participants.

After the introduction, Chapter Two begins with the clarification of basic terms:

“word,” “word knowledge,” and “strategy.” In Chapter Three, studies in the fields of

vocabulary learning strategies are reviewed. Chapter Four deals with mental processes

involved in vocabulary learning. Chapter Five focuses on the empirical study. I describe briefly

the German language course (GER 101) and the language textbook, Vorsprung (2nd

edition,

2002), and illustrate in depth the methodology used for data collection and data analysis. The

results of the study are presented in Chapter Six. Chapter Seven summarizes the study results,

followed by suggestions for foreign vocabulary instruction and for future research.

The study illustrates that participants used a variety of vocabulary learning strategies to

learn vocabulary. In total, 49 individual vocabulary learning strategies are identified and

iv

classified. Further, the differences between the learners are shown to be not only in what

strategies they use but also in how they employ them. Finally, the study shows that well-

organized and planned learning strategy training should be provided to language learners in

order to make sure that they can use the strategies effectively, and that language instructors and

the language textbook should play an active role in strategy training.

v

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Barbara Schmenk, for her

constant support, encouragement, and guidance throughout the long processes of conducting

the research and writing the thesis.

I would also like to thank my mentor, Dr. Michael Boehringer, for his time, patience,

and advice throughout the years of my Ph D studies. He is a mentor that every graduate student

would wish for. Also, I would like to thank Dr. David John for his encouragement when I

almost lost my confidence of finishing the thesis.

Many heartfelt thanks also go to the graduate officer of the Germanic and Slavic

Studies at the University of Waterloo, Dr. Mathias Schulze, for his consistent help and advice

throughout the different phases of my studies. Without his direction, I would not have

accomplished many of the study requirements on time and successfully.

I also appreciate the technical support from Orest Dorkowsky at ITMS (Instructional

Technologies and Multimedia Services) who video-recorded the think-aloud data and

transferred it onto DVDs. Without his help, the data collection procedure would not have been

completed so smoothly. I must also thank the instructor and the group of the German 101

students, especially the six research participants. Without them, I would have never been able

to conduct my research.

Finally, I would like to thank my family in Taiwan, my family in-law in Canada for

their love and support, and especially my husband, Michael, who has always been so loving,

supportive, and understanding. Also, I thank my friend Tetyana for her friendship and for

offering me a place to stay during the time of the doctoral colloquium and the thesis defense.

Thank you all for being there for me!

vi

Dedication

For

my father 林福雄 (Fu-hsiung Lin)

my mother 李式焆 (Shih-juan Li)

and especially, my husband Michael John DiSanto

vii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... x

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xii

Chapter One: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objectives and Research Questions ................................................................................. 4

1.2 Outline of the Thesis ........................................................................................................ 5

Chapter Two: Fundamental Issues .......................................................................................... 7

2.1 What Is a Word? ............................................................................................................... 7

2.2 What Does It Mean to “Know” a Word? Aspects of Word Knowledge ........................ 10

2.3 What Is a Strategy? ........................................................................................................ 17

Chapter Three: Literature Review......................................................................................... 22

Chapter Four: Mental Processes – Memory and Mental Lexicon ...................................... 50

4.1 Memory .......................................................................................................................... 50

4.1.1 The Major Memory Processes ............................................................................... 51

4.1.2 Memory Theories/Models ..................................................................................... 53

4.1.3 Forms of Long-Term Memory .............................................................................. 65

4.1.4 Forgetting .............................................................................................................. 67

4.1.5 Memory Enhancement ........................................................................................... 71

4.2 Mental Lexicon .............................................................................................................. 81

4.2.1 Representations of Word Meaning in the Mental Lexicon.................................... 81

4.2.2 L1 vs. L2 Mental Lexicon: Integrated or Separate? .............................................. 92

4.3 Implications for Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning ............................................. 94

viii

4.3.1 The Role of Attention/Noticing in Foreign Vocabulary Learning ........................ 94

4.3.2 Rehearsal (Repetition) and Distributed Practice ................................................... 95

4.3.3 Elaboration and Vocabulary Learning Strategies .................................................. 96

Chapter Five: The Study – Context and Methodology ...................................................... 102

5.1 The Language Course .................................................................................................. 103

5.2 The Textbook Vorsprung ............................................................................................. 104

5.3 Data Collection Methodology ...................................................................................... 113

5.4 Materials for the Vocabulary Activities ....................................................................... 129

5.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 136

Chapter Six: Study Results ................................................................................................... 140

6.1 Results of the Individual Participants .......................................................................... 140

6.1.1 Anna .................................................................................................................... 142

6.1.2 Sarah .................................................................................................................... 160

6.1.3 Kevin ................................................................................................................... 175

6.1.4 Kenny .................................................................................................................. 193

6.1.5 Erik ...................................................................................................................... 205

6.1.6 Ian ........................................................................................................................ 218

6.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Classification .............................................................. 232

6.2.1 Strategies for Creating Study Aids ...................................................................... 235

6.2.2 Discovery Strategies ............................................................................................ 236

6.2.3 Consolidation Strategies ...................................................................................... 244

ix

Chapter Seven: Summary, Conclusions and Implications ................................................. 260

7.1 Summary of the Study .................................................................................................. 260

7.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 268

7.3 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................... 272

7.4 Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................................. 273

References ............................................................................................................................... 276

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 303

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ............................................................................................. 303

Appendix B: Questionnaire 2 ............................................................................................. 306

Appendix C: Materials for the Vocabulary Activities ....................................................... 308

x

List of Tables

Table 2.1. General aspects of word knowledge ........................................................................ 11

Table 2.2. An overview of definitions of learning strategies in the research literature ............. 18

Table 3.1. List of macro- and micro-strategies identified in Ahmed ......................................... 23

Table 3.2. Features of a structured and an unstructured approach............................................. 28

Table 3.3. Stoffer‟s vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy ..................................................... 29

Table 3.4. Schmitt‟s vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy.................................................... 37

Table 3.5. Nation‟s taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies .............................................. 39

Table 3.6. Vocabulary learning strategy classification proposed by Takač .............................. 42

Table 3.7. Overview of the categories used in the reviewed studies. ........................................ 47

Table 4.1. An example of semantic feature analysis. ................................................................ 84

Table 4.2. Memory strategies in Oxford (1990) ........................................................................ 98

Table 4.3. Memory strategies in Schmitt‟s (1997) vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy ... 100

Table 5.1. Basic organization of the chapters in Vorsprung .................................................... 106

Table 6.1. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Anna ................................... 157

Table 6.2. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Sarah ................................... 173

Table 6.3. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Kevin .................................. 190

Table 6.4. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Kenny ................................. 203

Table 6.5. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Erik. .................................... 215

Table 6.6. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Ian ....................................... 230

Table 6.7. Strategies for creating study aids ............................................................................ 233

Table 6.8. Strategies for discovering the meaning of unknown words .................................... 233

Table 6.9. Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered ......................... 234

xi

Table 6.10. Results of individual vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by the

participants. Category 1. .......................................................................................................... 257





xii

List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Multi-store memory model. ..................................................................................... 54

Figure 4.2. The multi-component working memory model by Baddeley (2000). ..................... 57

Figure 4.3. Levels of processing by Craik and Lockhart (1972). .............................................. 62

Figure 4.4. Classification of long-term memory. ....................................................................... 66

Figure 4.5. Illustration of the hierarchical network in Collins and Quillian (1969). ................. 89

Figure 4.6. Spreading activation theory by Collins and Loftus (1975). .................................... 90

Figure 5.1. The Wortdetektiv activity in Chapter Three ......................................................... 107

Figure 5.2. Wissenswerte Vokabeln: Lebensmittel (food) ...................................................... 109

Figure 5.3. A simplified version of the word list. .................................................................... 130

Figure 5.4. Quiz for the vocabulary activities.......................................................................... 132

Figure 5.5. The word recognition exercise .............................................................................. 133

Figure 5.6. The seven sentences for the matching exercise ..................................................... 134

Figure 5.7. The seven pictures for the matching exercise........................................................ 134

Figure 5.8. Writing about Canadian stereotypes. ..................................................................... 136

Figure 6.1. Example of the basic organization of the individual participant section .............. 141

Figure 6.2. From Fenster to fenêtre to window. ...................................................................... 147

Figure 6.3. From door to dür to Tür. ........................................................................................ 147

Figure 6.4. The entry verstehen in the German-English vocabulary in Vorsprung ................. 166

Figure 6.5. The entry halten in the German-English vocabulary in Vorsprung ..................... 167

Figure 6.6. An example of grouping strategy employed by Sarah. ......................................... 169

Figure 6.7. An example of testing-oneself strategy employed by Sarah. ................................ 169

Figure 6.8. An illustration of Kevin‟s notes during the think-aloud protocols ........................ 185

xiii

Figure 6.9. The lexical entries of cold in the Collins Dictionary ............................................. 214

Figure 6.10. The lexical entries of live in the Collins Dictionary............................................ 228

1

Chapter One: Introduction

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several articles were published to address the issue of

vocabulary being largely neglected in the field of second/foreign language1

acquisition/learning2 research: “For some years now the study of second language lexical

acquisition has been languishing in neglect. „Neglect‟ is perhaps an understatement; one might

almost say that second language lexical acquisition has been a victim of discrimination”

(Levenston, 1979, p. 147; also cited in Sanaoui, 1992, p. 6). Also, Meara (1982) emphasizes

the neglect directly in the title of his article, “Vocabulary Acquisition: A Neglected Aspect of

Language Learning.” Today, almost three decades later, it is pleasing to witness that “the field

of vocabulary studies is now anything but a neglected area” (Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997, p.

1).3 Researchers have made great efforts to tackle vocabulary from various aspects. Among the

most frequently studied issues and questions4 are, for example:

Word definition (What is a word?)

Word knowledge (What does it mean to know a word?)

1The terms “second language” and “foreign language” both signify a language other than one‟s native language.

In many studies, the two terms are used without differentiation. Sometimes, in order to contrast the difference

between the two terms, second language is more narrowly defined as a language that is learned in a country where

this language is used broadly in the society or in the business of education and government, whereas foreign

language is a language which is learned in a country where this language is not widely used as a medium of

communication in the society (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Based on this contrast, German is a foreign language

in Canada and in the present thesis. Nevertheless, I will used the two terms interchangeably to reflect the use of

the particular researcher being discussed. I will also use the term “target language” as a generic phrase to refer to

the language being learned (e.g., German in my study). 2I am aware of the debates about the term definitions “acquisition vs. learning” (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985).

However, in this thesis, they will be used interchangeably, as in most of the vocabulary research literature. 3For the history of vocabulary in language learning research, refer to Schmitt (2000), Chapter Two.

4There have been numerous publications discussing these issues, for example: books by Aitchison (2003), Carter

(1998), Coady and Huckin (1997), Hiebert and Kamil (2005), McKeown and Curtis (1987), Nation (1990, 2001),

Schmitt and McCarthy (1997), Schmitt (2000), Singleton (1999, 2000). Applied linguists in Germanic speaking

world such as Bahns (1997), Bausch, Christ, Königs, and Krumm (1995), Bayerlein (1997), Bohn (1999), De

Florio-Hansen (1994), Kemmeter (1999), Löschmann (1993), Müller (1994), and Zhang (2001) also concluded

significant studies to vocabulary. In addition, Nation compiled an extensive list of bibliography on vocabulary,

available at: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/vocrefs/index.aspx. (Retrieved on September 10,

2008).

2

Vocabulary size (How many words does a native speaker know? How many words does a

second language learner need?)

Word frequency (Low vs. high frequency words)

Vocabulary instruction (How should vocabulary be taught? How should vocabulary be

chosen for teaching?)

Mnemonics (particularly, the keyword method)5 and its efficiency

Mental lexicon (How do monolinguals and bilinguals organize words in mind? Are the first

language (L1) and the second language (L2) mental lexicons integrated or separated?)

The source of linguistic input in L1 and L2 vocabulary learning

Individual learner differences in vocabulary learning (e.g., motivation, attitudes, learner

beliefs, gender)

In parallel with the growth of the vocabulary studies was the change in research focus

in the field of second/foreign language learning: Beginning in the late 1970s, the focus has

shifted gradually from teaching to learning, i.e., “from the methods of teaching to the learner

characteristics and their possible influence on the process of acquiring a second language”

(Wenden, 1987a, p. 3). In other words, researchers have become more concerned with how

language is learned, not merely with how it should be taught. Along with this concern emerged

the interest in the language learner‟s use of learning strategies (language learning strategies).

The rationale that the researchers in the field of language learning strategies built their

work upon is that the language learner‟s success should be attributed to the learner‟s effort and

to the language learning strategies they apply, not merely because “they just have an ear for

language” (O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 2). Further, researchers also assumed that once the

5 Refer to Chapter 4.1.5.4 for a detailed description of the mnemonics, including the keyword method.

3

strategies which are used by the more successful language learners are identified, the less

successful learners can benefit from them as well by applying these strategies to improve their

own learning processes (Hosenfeld, 1977, 1979; Rubin 1987). These assumptions led to a

growing interest in language learning strategies (e.g., Bialystok, 1981, 1983; Chamot, 1987,

2001, 2004; Chamot et al. 1999; Cohen, 1998; Goh, 1998, 2002; McDonough, 1995; Naiman

et al., 1978; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 1996; Prokop,

1989; Rubin, 1975, 1981, 1987; Schmeck, 1988; Stern, 1975, 1986, 1992; Tarone, 1981;

Wenden & Rubin, 1987; Wenden, 1987a, 1987b, 2001; Wong, 2005).

The two fields of second/foreign language learning research – vocabulary and language

learning strategies – developed more or less in parallel for over a decade. In the 1990s,

vocabulary learning strategies – the place where the two fields intersect (Schmitt, 1997, p. 199)

– finally attracted more and more attention. Research in this new field started to grow.

Researchers began to look into learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies and hoped that

the studies would provide a different angle to tackle the question of how foreign vocabulary is

learned.

Thus far, there have been numerous researches on vocabulary learning strategies. The

researchers often recruit large groups of participants and use questionnaires or interviews to

collect data. In addition, many of the studies aim to find out which strategies are most and least

frequently used (i.e., the “trends” of vocabulary strategy use; Schmitt, 1997) by the groups,

and/or to make correlation to learning outcomes. Furthermore, data are usually statistically

analyzed. Research results are presented through numbers. Details behind the numbers are not

the main interest. In my opinion, these approaches have the following problems: First, research

on the group response does not really tell us what vocabulary learning strategies individual

4

learners use, and more importantly, how they use the strategies. Second, data collected from

questionnaires, interviews, and self-reports can serve only as retrospection, since learners‟

answers to the questions might not be “a true reflection of what actually happens when a

learner tackles a word” (Nation, 2001, p. 224). Empirical studies exploring individual learners‟

actual use of vocabulary learning strategies remain deficient in this field. The present thesis

aims to fill that gap.

1.1 Objectives and Research Questions

The ultimate goal of my study is threefold: to make contributions to vocabulary

learning research, to vocabulary instruction, and to language learning overall. I want to show

that vocabulary should not be left to take care of itself. On the contrary, a “systematic and

principled approach” to vocabulary instruction (Nation, 1990, p. 2) is necessary. However, I

also argue that, without solid knowledge of how learners learn, any suggestion or idea for

vocabulary teaching and/or strategy instruction will be nothing but speculation and assumption

without a solid foundation. In other words, I believe that, before discussions on how to

improve the quality of vocabulary teaching are carried out, one should take a step back and pay

more attention to learners‟ learning processes. Hence, I conduct a multiple-case study to

explore individual learners‟ vocabulary learning processes, and look at their actual use of

vocabulary learning strategies. I particularly address the following key questions:

1. What vocabulary learning strategies do the individual learners report they usually use to

find out the meaning of unknown words and to consolidate the spelling and meaning of the

words they have encountered?

5

2. What vocabulary learning strategies do the individual learners actually use to find the

meaning of unknown words and to consolidate the words in the vocabulary study activities?

3. How do the individual learners apply the vocabulary learning strategies for the purposes

mentioned above?

4. What are the differences between the individual learners‟ use of vocabulary learning

strategies?

From my point of view, only when these questions are investigated can I move on to make

suggestions for vocabulary learning and instruction.

1.2 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis addresses the role of vocabulary learning strategies in learning vocabulary

in German as foreign language. It begins with the clarification of basic terms. In Chapter Two,

three basic terms and questions pertinent to vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning

strategies will be dealt with: “word” (What is a word?), “word knowledge” (What does it mean

to know a word?), and “strategy” (What is a strategy?). In Chapter Three, studies in the field of

vocabulary learning strategies will be reviewed. Chapter Four deals with mental processes

involved in vocabulary learning. Vocabulary learning is a complex process. From encountering

the unknown word, to learning both form and meaning features, to being able to select the

correct words and use them accurately, memory plays a crucial role. The memory process

involves, for example, retaining the knowledge (remembering), storing it in the brain, and

retrieving it when needed for use. How do memory and the mental lexicon deal with those

issues? What are the differences in the mental lexicons of native speakers and foreign language

learners? These are the topics I will address in this chapter. Chapter Five focuses on the

6

empirical study. I will describe briefly the German language course (German 101 Elementary

German I) and the language textbook, Vorsprung (2002, 2nd

edition), which was used for the

German language courses at the University of Waterloo in the fall term, 2006. Then, I will

illustrate in depth the methodology used for data collection and data analysis. The results of the

study will be presented in Chapter Six. The final chapter, Chapter Seven, concludes the study

results and discusses the implications of the results, followed by suggestions for foreign

vocabulary instruction and for future research.

7

Chapter Two: Fundamental Issues

The main aim of this chapter is to clarify the terms that are most essential to the present

thesis: First, what is a word? How is it defined in linguistics? (Chapter 2.1) Second, what does

it mean to know a word? As Nation (2001) points out, “Words are not isolated units of

language, but fit into many interlocking systems and levels. Because of this there are many

things to know about any particular word and there are many degrees of knowing” (p. 23).

Thus, I will discuss what is actually involved in “knowing” a word and the incremental nature

of word knowledge (Chapter 2.2). Finally, the term “strategy”: Has there been a consensus on

its definition? If not, how has this term been defined in the research literature? (Chapter 2.3)

2.1 What Is a Word?

Vocabulary is primarily understood as a body of words used in a particular language,

or in a particular sphere, or at a particular point of time.6 However, this definition leads to the

question: what is a word? Most of us have the ability to identify a nonsense word from a real

word in our first language (L1) or in a language which we are very familiar with. Everyone

seems to have some common-sense notion of what a word is. But it is not easy to clearly state

what a word is, even for linguists. Numerous scholars in linguistics have tried to define the

term word. However, a generally accepted definition does not exist. As Bussmann (1998)

indicates, “A word is characterized by different, often contradictory traits depending on the

theoretical background and descriptive context” (p. 521). In the following, I will briefly

describe how linguists of different fields define the term, and discuss the controversy and

contradiction between the definitions.7

6Cf. Bussmann (1998), Soanes and Hawker (2005), Stork (2003, p. 15).

7The description draws on Bussmann (1998), Carter (1998), Nation (2001), Schmitt (2000), and Takač (2008).

8

On the orthographic level, “A word is any sequence of letters (and a limited number of

other characteristics such as hyphen and apostrophe) bounded on either side by a space or

punctuation mark” (Carter, 1998, p. 4). However, the following question arises with this

definition: Are the words die Birne (pear), die Birne (light bulb) – words which have the same

form but different meanings – viewed as one word or several words? The same question comes

up with gehen, gehe, gehst, geht, ging, gegangen which are grammatical variants of the stem

-geh-.

On the lexical-semantic level, “A word is the minimum meaningful unit of language”

(ibid., p. 5). With this definition, the problem with die Birne (pear), die Birne (light bulb) is

solved: they can be regarded as different words, because the words have different meaning.

However, this definition is also problematic because it presupposes a clear one to one

correspondence between a single word and a meaning. However, there are single units of

meaning that consist of more than one word. For example:

sterben – hinscheiden – das Zeitliche segnen – ins Gras beißen

These four units all mean to die. But the last two units do not contain only one word, they are

idioms – “a string of words which taken together has a different meaning than the individual

component words” (Schmitt, 2000, p. 1).

From the morphological point of view, “A word is a minimal free form.” That is, “a

word is a word if it can stand on its own as a reply to a question or as a statement or

exclamation” (Carter, 1998, p. 5). Also, based on the morphological view, a word cannot be

subdivided (ibid., p. 5).8 Indeed, in German, one can, for example, simply just answer Ja. (Yes)

or Nein. (No) to the question Haben Sie Hunger? (Are you hungry?) or Da. (There) or Hier.

(Here) to the question Wo ist mein Stift? (Where is my pen?) Nevertheless, we cannot ignore

8This view originally stems from Bloomfield (1933).

9

the fact that not all of the minimal free forms can stand on its own. For instance, the

conjunctions (e.g., weil [because], aber [but]) are unlikely to occur on their own without other

words. In addition, idioms such as ins Gras beißen cannot be further divided without losing the

meaning of to die.

It is obvious that the attempts to define the term “word” have encountered difficulties in

many ways. In order to resolve the problems described above, a neutral term “lexeme” (also

lexical unit or lexical item) has been proposed to replace the term “word.” A lexeme is,

according to Richards and Schmidt (2002),

the smallest unit in the meaning system of a language that can be distinguished from

other similar units. A lexeme is an abstract unit. It can occur in many different forms in

actual spoken or written sentences, and is regarded as the same lexeme even when

inflected. (p. 303)

Hence, the idioms das Zeitliche segnen or ins Gras beißen are lexemes. In other words, sterben

– hinscheiden – das Zeitliche segnen – ins Gras beißen are lexemes with the same meaning.

The problem of lack of correspondence between a single word and meaning is solved if we

regard a single word (e.g., sterben) and an idiom (e.g., das Zeitliche segnen) as a lexeme, a

lexical unit. A lexeme can also be an abstract unit which may be realized in various

grammatical variants (Carter, 1998; Bussmann, 1998). For example, geh- is the lexeme which

is realized in the inflections gehen, gehst, geht, ging, and gegangen.

An important question arises with the controversy of the word definitions: Should the

term “word” still be used in this study? Or should I avoid these terms and use “lexeme” or

“lexical items” instead? In this issue, I agree with Carter (1998) that “it is clear that the uses of

the words word or vocabulary have a general common-sense validity and are serviceable when

10

there is no need to be precise” (p. 8). Further, another reason for keeping the term “word” is to

be consistent with the term used in the questionnaires developed for the empirical study of my

research. It was difficult and not reasonable to avoid using the term “word” in the

questionnaires and interviews during the data collection period, because the participants were

not familiar with linguistic terms such as lexeme. The language used in the questionnaires and

interviews should be easy for the participants to understand. Finally, as Carter (1998) also

points out, “writers of any kind of text produce particular effects on readers if they keep

repeating the same words without any kind of variation. In some contexts, it will be useful to

have word, lexical item and vocabulary as variants” (p. 8). Thus, taking all these concerns into

consideration, I will continue using the term “word” for general reference in the present thesis.

2.2 What Does It Mean to “Know” a Word? Aspects of Word Knowledge

It is not uncommon that we may have spoken a certain word of our mother tongue

numerous times in our life without knowing how to write or spell the word; or we are able to

recognize a word when we read it or hear it but we don‟t know how to pronounce it or use it

correctly in context. A language learner may encounter these problems even more frequently.

This common situation indicates that there are different types of word knowledge, and the

degree of knowing a word is also different from person to person. In the literature of

vocabulary research, word knowledge is often distinguished as follows: the ability to

understand a word when reading or listening is usually called receptive (or passive) knowledge,

while productive (or active) knowledge is connected to the ability to produce a word when

speaking or writing. This way of distinguishing types of knowledge resembles the distinction

between the receptive skills of listening and reading and the productive skills of speaking and

11

writing (Nation 2001, p. 24). However, Schmitt (2000) argues that it is far too simple to frame

mastery of a word in terms of receptive versus productive knowledge. As the example shown

above, one might have good productive knowledge of the spoken form of a word, but not of its

written form, or vice versa. Besides, the distinction is not completely suitable here because the

language learning process is not an “either-or” process of merely receiving or merely

producing. When we hear or see words, we normally also produce meanings in our head,

otherwise the sound and the written form of the word are meaningless to us. As Nation (2001,

p. 24) points out, “there are productive features in the receptive skills – when listening and

reading we produce meaning.” Nation (ibid.) proposes three basic criteria of knowing a word:

knowing its form, its meaning and its use. Under each of the three major aspects, the

“receptive” (R) and “productive” (P) knowledge of a word are incorporated (see Table 2.1

below). I will describe each of the three categories in brief below. It is important to bear in

mind that, although types of knowledge and their components are listed separately, they are

actually interrelated in reality.

Table 2.1. General aspects of word knowledge (Source: Nation, 2001, p. 27)

Form

spoken

written

word parts

R

P

R

P

R

P

What does the word sound like?

How is the word pronounced?

What does the word look like?

How is the word written and spelled?

What parts are recognizable in this word?

What word parts are needed to express the meaning?

Mea

nin

g

form and meaning

concept and referents

associations

R

P

R

P

R

P

What meaning does this word form signal?

What word form can be used to express this meaning?

What is included in the concept?

What items can the concept refer to?

What other words does this make us think of?

What other words could we use instead of this one?

Use

grammatical functions

collocations

constraints on use

R

P

R

P

R

P

In what patterns does the word occur?

In what patterns must we use this word?

What words or types of words occur with this one?

What words or type of words must we use with this one?

Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word?

Where, when, and how often can we use this word?

12

Form

The term “form” refers to both the spoken and written form of a word. Knowing the

form means being able to recognize the word when it is heard and seen (e.g., in reading), being

able to say it with accurate pronunciation including stress, as well as being capable of writing it

with correct spelling. Study findings show that when the phonological patterns of the L1 and

the target language are similar, the learning burden of the target words will be lighter. That is,

“the more pronounceable the foreign words [are], the easier they [are] to learn” (Nation, 2001,

p. 42). Also, if the L1 uses the same writing system as the target language, it will be much

easier to learn the target language. For example, it will be much easier for an English native

speaker to learn the written form of German words than to learn Chinese or Arabic, due to the

very different script (Nation, 1990, 2001).9

In terms of word parts, it involves recognizing the parts that make up a word, and

relating these parts to the meaning of the word. For instance, when seeing the word

underestimated, one can identify that the word is made of under-, -estimate-, and -(e)d, and one

can make the connection between these parts and the word‟s underlying meaning. Nation

(2001) points out that the learning burden of foreign words will be light if the learner already

knows the word parts from the L1 or from other languages he/she is familiar with. Bauer and

Nation (1993) argue that learners‟ knowledge of word parts and how the parts are built together

changes as their proficiency develops.

9This view seems to be based on Contrastive Analysis. It seems to suggest that the closer the L1 to the L2, the

easier it is to acquire the L2. However, it is crucial to bear in mind that learning foreign language is much more

complicated than that. Learning the script of the target language is only a part of the language learning processes.

13

Meaning

Based on de Saussure, a word (“sign” in de Saussure‟s terminology) consists of form

(written and spoken) and meaning. Knowing a word not only means to know the form and the

meaning, but more importantly, to be able to connect the two. According to Baddeley (1990),

the retrieval of the meaning when seeing or hearing the word is affected by the strength of the

connection between the form and its meaning. The connection between the two will be

strengthened each time the meaning or the form is retrieved successfully. Hence, it is helpful to

see the form and meaning together initially, and to have opportunities to make retrievals. Also,

the learning burden of making the form-meaning connection will be lighter if the target word is

a cognate or loan word shared by the L1 and the target language (Nation, 2001), for example,

the English-German word pairs politcs-Politik or brother-Bruder. However, if the target word

is a false cognate (also called false friend) – “a word which has the same or very similar form

in two languages, but which has a different meaning in each” (Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p.

198) – such as the English word handy (as in a handy man) and das Handy (the cell phone) in

German, the similarity might cause confusion and errors for the language learner.

With regard to a concept and its referent,10

the relationship between the two is not

always one to one. Many words have a variety of different meanings. When the meanings of

words with the same form are completely unrelated, the words are called homonyms, for

instance, the English verb to lie in Don‟t lie, be honest! and in You need to lie down.

Sometimes, the meanings of a word show a relationship with each other (i.e., polysemy),11

for

example, the English noun head as a person‟s head and as the head of a department (Nation,

10

See also Chapter 4.2 of the present thesis for more discussions on the relationship between the terms “word,”

“concept,” and “referent.” 11

However, it is a well-known problem in semantics to differentiate between homonymy and polysemy (Richards

& Schmidt, 2002, p. 241). A discussion about this problem is beyond the scope of the present thesis. Refer to

Carter (1998), Saeed (2003) for more detailed discussions.

14

2001, p. 49). When facing homonyms and polysemous items, it is important to know the

concepts behind the words, to have a good understanding of the word meanings in different

contexts, and to know how to produce the words in a variety of contexts.

Finally, there is the issue of knowing the associations of a word: by associations,

Nation (ibid.) means the semantic relationships between words, such as synonymy (i.e.,

different forms with the same, or nearly the same meaning, e.g., beautiful – pretty), antonymy

(i.e., words with opposite meaning, e.g., beautiful – ugly), and hyponymy (i.e., the hierarchical

relationship between words, e.g., bird is the hyperonym, robin is the hyponym). Nation states

that “understanding these relations is useful for explaining the meanings of words and for

creating activities to enrich learners‟ understanding of words” (ibid., p. 52).

Use

In order to use a word properly, one does not only need the knowledge of the form and

the meaning, but also the knowledge of grammatical functions, such as knowing the part of

speech of the word and what grammatical patterns it can fit into. The following erroneous

sentence is an example of the lack of knowledge of grammatical functions:

*In Toronto, man kann Armbanduhr Basketballspiele.

(In Toronto, one can watch basketball games.)

Obviously, the learner assumes that grammar in German works the same way as in English,

and a word-by-word direct translation is appropriate. Regardless of the erroneous word order,

the student apparently has not paid attention to the part of speech of the word watch when he

was looking up its equivalent in German. Watch as a verb and a noun has two different

equivalents in German. He has not noticed that Armbanduhr is a noun, and a verb was actually

needed. He might have just selected the first German equivalent in the dictionary. The lack of

15

knowledge of the grammatical functions of words has led to the incorrect selection of the

equivalent and finally to formation of a wrong sentence.

Concerning collocations, the term collocation refers to the way in which words are used

together regularly, i.e., the restrictions on how words can be used together, for instance which

prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs and nouns are used together. For

instance, in English, the verb to perform is used with the noun operation, not with discussion;

high collocates with probability, not with chance (Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p. 87).

Last but not least, knowing the constraints on use is also significant. Two issues are

involved in this aspect of word knowledge: first, it involves knowing whether the word is a

high or low frequency word. Second, it means knowing how to use words appropriately.

Nation (2001) points out that knowing the frequency constraint is important for both

vocabulary teaching and learning: “If a teacher spends a lot of time on a word and overuses it,

this affects the learner‟s use of the word. […] If time is given to words according to their

usefulness [...] then this can be avoided” (ibid. p. 57).

Appropriateness of word use sometimes depends on the context. For instance, in

German, there is a difference between du (informal you, singular), ihr (informal you, plural)

and Sie (formal you, singular and plural). It is important to know when to use which “you” in

what context. Nation (2001) also mentions that constraints on use may differ across cultures.

For instance, “in Thai, names like pig, fatty, shrimp and mouse are common nicknames. They

are less acceptable in English” (p. 58).

Vocabulary learning is a complex process. As shown above, it involves a range of

aspects of knowledge. Nation points out that “[t]here is still little research on how vocabulary

knowledge grows and how different kinds of encounters with words contribute to vocabulary

16

knowledge” (ibid., p. 4). Nevertheless, an important and widely recognized characteristic of

vocabulary learning process is that it takes time to gradually master the types of word

knowledge discussed above. For instance, it is likely that people may know what a word means

when they hear it, but they may not know how to spell it properly at the same time. As Schmitt

(2000, pp. 5-6) points out:

The different types of word knowledge are not necessarily learned at the same time.

Each of the word-knowledge types is likely to be learned in a gradual manner, but some

may develop later than others and at different rates. From this perspective, vocabulary

acquisition must be incremental, as it is clearly impossible to gain immediate mastery

of all these word knowledges simultaneously. Thus, at any point in time, unless the

word is completely unknown or fully acquired, the different word knowledges will

exist at various degrees of mastery.

I agree with Nation that knowing a word should not merely refer to knowing the form

and meaning of the word. The aspect of being able to use words accurately and properly in a

context should not be neglected. Hence, in my empirical study, I will focus on the aspects of

knowing form, meaning, and use. I will investigate what adult learners of German do to

discover the meaning of unknown words and to consolidate the meaning and written form (i.e.,

spelling) of the words. I will investigate which vocabulary learning strategies are employed

and how they are employed by the learners to discover the meaning of unknown words and to

consolidate the meaning and form. Finally, I will also explore what the learners do to use the

words they have encountered and whether the learners know how to use the words in context

after they have studied the form and meaning.

17

2.3 What Is a Strategy?

The present thesis investigates language learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies.

Thus, it is fundamental to define what a vocabulary learning strategy is. In my opinion, the

definition of vocabulary learning strategy is closely related to the definitions of strategy and

language learning strategy. Hence, I will look at all of these terms in the research literature step

by step: starting from the definitions of strategy, to the definitions of language learning strategy,

and finally, I will present the definition of vocabulary learning strategy for my research.

The word strategy, as Oxford (1990) points out, initially derives from the ancient Greek

term strategia which meant “generalship or the art of war. More specifically, strategy involves

the optimal management of troops, ships, or aircraft in a planned campaign” (pp. 7-8). In the

contemporary world, the battle and war characteristics of the term have eventually faded away.

Strategy has been applied to non-military settings and non-adversarial, non-aggressive, and

non-competitive situations including language learning, and thus led to the emergence of the

term learning strategy, or more specific, language learning strategy.12

However, in spite of the

huge body of research on language learning strategies in the second/foreign language learning

since the mid 1970s, a consensus of the definition of learning strategy or language learning

strategy has not been available. Table 2.2 below displays the variety of the definitions in the

literature.

12

There is a wealth of research and publications on strategies, not only in SLA but most prominently in

psychology and educational psychology, e.g., Alexander and Judy (1988), Alexander, Graham, and Harris (1998),

Baker (1989), Hamman, Berthelot, Saia, and Crowley (2000), Palmer and Goetz (1988), Pressley and Hilden

(2006), Siegler and Alibali (2005), Siegler and Jenkins (1989), Snowman (1984), Wilson and Corbett (2001), to

name but a few.

18

Table 2.2. An overview of definitions of (language) learning strategies in the research

literature. (Source: Takač, 2008, p. 51; modified and added)

Source Definition

Rubin (1975) The techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire

knowledge.

Stern (1975, 1986,

1992), Naiman et

al. (1978)

Strategies are general, more or less deliberate approaches, while

techniques are more specific, observable forms of language learning

behavior

Tarone (1981) An attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in

the target language.

Chamot (1987) Techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in

order to facilitate learning, recall of both linguistic and content

information

Weinstein &

Mayer (1986)

Behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that

are intended to influence the learner‟s encoding process.

Wenden (1987a) The term refers to language behaviors learners engage in to learn and

regulate the learning of L2, to what learners know about the strategies

they use (i.e., strategic knowledge), and to what learner know about

aspects of L2 learning.

Schmeck (1988) Strategy refers to a more general approach, whereas tactic refers to

specific activities or steps.

O‟Malley &

Chamot (1990)

The special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them

comprehend, learn, or retain new information.

Oxford (1990) Behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning

more successful, self-directed and enjoyable.

Ellis (1994) Generally, a strategy is a mental or behavioral activity related to some

specific stage in the process of language acquisition or language use.

Ridley (1997) Broadly speaking, the term strategy denotes procedures – which are

sometimes conscious and sometimes unconscious – used by a person

as a way of reaching a goal.

Cohen (1998) Processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may

result in action taken to enhance the learning or use of a L2, through

the storage, recall and application of information about that language.

Purpura (1999) Conscious or unconscious techniques or activities that an individual

invokes in language learning, use or testing.

Goh (1998, 2002) The term “tactic” is used to refer to individual techniques through

which a general strategy is operationalized.

When we report the use of a certain comprehension strategy, we are

saying that a particular approach has been taken. However, when we

identify the tactics used, we are describing the actual steps taken to

assist or enhance comprehension.

19

The first issue arising from the definitions listed in Table 2.2 is the emergence of the

terms “technique” (e.g., Naiman et al., 1978; Stern 1975, 1986, and 1992) and “tactic”

(Schmeck, 1988; Goh, 1998, 2002).13

Both terms are applied to highlight the contrast between

generality and specificity, i.e., between strategies as more general approaches and techniques

or tactics as more specific actions, or the actually step taken by the learner. As Schmeck (1988)

states, “tactics operationalize strategies, i.e., tactics are the observable activities that imply that

certain strategies are in use” (p. 171). For instance, when learners use the context to infer the

meaning of a word, or they infer the meaning of a word by remembering another word that

sounds like the original, they are using the inferencing strategy (Goh, 1998, p. 125).

Nevertheless, Takač (2008) points out that, “Currently, researchers have abandoned the

dichotomy between strategies and tactics/techniques and use the term individual learning

strategy to refer to the kind of behavior Stern called techniques” (p. 47). Hence, in my study, I

will continue using the term strategy as it “enjoys the widest currency” (Larsen-Freeman &

Long, 1991, p. 199).

The second issue arising from the definitions in Table 2.2 concerns the presence of

consciousness. The question is: are learning strategies conscious, subconscious, or sometimes

conscious and sometimes not? Takač (2008) indicates that this is still a controversial issue:

“Many researchers agree, however, that [language learning strategies] are often used

deliberately and consciously, but their use can become automatic, i.e., subconscious. It can be

concluded that [language learning strategies] are conscious, potentially conscious or

subconscious depending on individual learners and the task they are engaged in” (p. 55). For

13

In addition to technique and tactic, the term strategy has also been referred to as potentially conscious plans,

consciously employed operations, learning skills, basic skills, functional skills, cognitive abilities, language

processing strategies, problem solving procedures, language learning behaviors, thinking skills, thinking frames,

reasoning skills, basic reasoning skills, and learning-to-learn skills (Cf. Wenden, 1987a; Oxford, 1990; Takač,

2008).

20

my study, I follow Takač‟s conclusion and do not exclusively look at strategies which learners

employ deliberately, but also at those that are used automatically, because my goal is to elicit

rich and comprehensive data.

Taking the issues discussed above into account, and summarizing the definitions listed

in Table 2 and the characteristics of learning strategies put forward by Oxford (1990), Takač

(2008), and Wenden (1987a), I define language learning strategies broadly as follows:

language learning strategies are specific physical or mental actions (approaches,

behaviors, steps) that language learners take (consciously or subconsciously) to enhance

the development of language competence in the target language. Vocabulary learning

strategies are then language learning strategies employed to learn vocabulary in the

target language.

According to Nation (2001), vocabulary learning strategies which deserve attention

from a teacher should have the following characteristics (p. 217):

(1) They involve choice, that is, there are several strategies to choose from.

(2) They are complex, i.e., consisting of several steps to learn.

(3) They require knowledge and benefit from training.

(4) They increase the efficiency of vocabulary learning and use.

Nonetheless, as I have argued in the introductory chapter, without a more solid

knowledge of how learners learn, suggestions or ideas for vocabulary teaching and/or

vocabulary learning strategy instruction remain nothing but speculation; they cannot be based

on a solid empirical foundation. I believe it is crucial to conduct an empirical study to explore

learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies before discussing the usefulness of strategy

21

training or which strategy should be chosen for strategy instruction. I will introduce the study

in Chapter Five of the present thesis.

22

Chapter Three: Literature Review

Research on vocabulary learning strategies is a relatively new field. Researchers‟

interests in this area started to grow about two decades ago. In general, as Schmitt (1997)

points out, research has tended to concentrate on individual strategies (such as the keyword

method, repetition, and guessing from context),14

or to deal with vocabulary strategy training.

Only very few studies looked at the group “as a whole” (Schmitt, 1997).15

In this chapter, I will

concentrate especially on these studies.16

Ahmed (1989) was the first study that investigated vocabulary learning strategies on the

whole.17

His study aimed to identify the vocabulary learning strategies used by 300 Sudanese

learners of English. Unlike the early studies on language learning strategies which were only

concerned with good language learners and their strategy use (e.g., Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975;

Naiman et al., 1978), Ahmed (1989) wanted to discover the difference between good and poor

language learners18

with regard to how they applied vocabulary learning strategies. In addition,

Ahmed did not only want to identify the vocabulary learning strategies at the “macro-level,”

but also at the “micro-level.” Learning strategies at the macro-level (or “macro-strategies” as

Ahmed called them) refer to the general approaches to learning, while “micro-strategies” are

14

Refer to Chapter 4.1.5 for more discussion about these strategies. 15

Schmitt did not explicitly explain what he meant by looking at vocabulary learning strategies “as a whole.”

Takač (2008) interpreted it by viewing vocabulary learning strategies as “a specialized subgroup of general

learning strategies” (p. 64). In my own understanding, studies that dealt with vocabulary learning strategies “as a

whole” were those that identified and/or classified learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies, such as those

reviewed in this chapter. 16

As for the research on the keyword method and repetition, I will present it in Chapter Four (on memory), since

they are much discussed in memory research. 17

According to Kudo (1999) and Stork (2003) who followed Kudo, Stoffer (1995) was the first study that

investigated vocabulary learning strategies as a whole group. However, this statement was not accurate.

According to Schmitt (1997) as well as Nation (2001), investigation as such had already started with Ahmed

(1989). 18

The 300 research participants were categorized as good or poor language learners by school officials based on

the school records and subjective assessment.

23

the “more detailed, specific learner behaviors” (ibid., p. 4). Ahmed gave an example to make

the distinction more comprehensible:

For example, at the macro-strategy level, most good learners engage in what might be

called “practice.” However, some learners use specific micro-strategies in their practice

which do not appear in the behavior of other learners; for instance, some learners test

themselves systematically as part of their practice, while others do not. (ibid., p. 4)

Ahmed used the following instruments to collect data: a think-aloud task, observation

during the think-aloud procedure, and an interview with the help of a questionnaire. As results,

nearly 40 micro-strategies were identified and grouped into six macro-strategies (see Table 3.1

below).

Table 3.1. List of macro- and micro-strategies identified in Ahmed (1989, pp. 10-11).

Macro-strategies Micro-strategies

Information

sources

ask classmates

guessing

ask teacher

overlook

ask for L2 paraphrases

ask for L1 equivalent

ask for example of use

group work

dictionary

Dictionary use

monolingual dictionary

bilingual dictionary

look up meaning

look up derivation

look up word class

look for example of use

Memorization

write and repeat aloud

repeat aloud

write, repeat and L2 synonym

write, repeat and L1 equivalent

24

Practice

new word in real situation

new word in imaginary situation

ask for test

ask others to verify knowledge

use written source to verify knowledge

self-test

Preferred source of

information

asking somebody

group work

dictionary

Note-taking

take notes at all

notes in margin

vocabulary book

ordering new words sequentially

organizing words by meaning

spelling info

L1 equivalent

L2 synonym

L1 equivalent and L2 synonym

word derivations

grammatical info

The results also showed that, in general, good and poor language learners indeed used

vocabulary learning strategies differently: the good learners used a variety of strategies, had a

clear awareness of what they could learn about new words, knew that it is important to learn

words in context, were conscious of the semantic relationship between new and already

learned-L2 words, and made full use of monolingual or bilingual dictionaries to get many kinds

of information. The poor language learners, on the contrary, applied a much smaller range of

strategies, showed little interests in learning words in context, and did not know how to

connect the new words to old knowledge.

In fact, before Ahmed (1989), Porte (1986, 1988) had already looked specifically into

poor language learners‟ use of strategies for dealing with new vocabulary. Porte (1988)

interviewed 15 poor learners of English and came to the conclusion that these learners “were

using strategies for dealing with new vocabulary which were very similar to those found in

25

studies of „the good language learner‟” (p. 167), but the difference was that they applied them

unsophisticatedly and inefficiently. Porte (1988) suggested that teachers should not ask the

students to uncritically copy “model strategies” (i.e., strategies used by good language learners).

Rather, “it is vital to know [...] how far [...] the problem lies in an inappropriately applied,

unsophisticated, or incomplete set of learning strategies” (ibid., p. 171). The teachers‟

responsibility is to help the weak learners to “identify, nurture and, where necessary and

feasible, refine their own current repertoire of learning strategies” (ibid., p. 171).

Hatch and Brown (1995) contributed one chapter of their book to vocabulary learning

strategies in general. Based on Brown and Payne (1994), Hatch and Brown divided vocabulary

learning strategies into five groups which were also viewed as the five essential steps for

vocabulary learning:

(1) Encountering new words

(2) Getting the word form

(3) Getting the word meaning

(4) Consolidating word form and meaning in memory

(5) Using the word

The five steps also function as five sieves. Hatch and Brown (1995) stated, “If learners

or teachers can do anything to move more words through any of the steps, the overall result

should be more vocabulary learned” (p. 373). The first step – encountering new words – refers

to having sources for words. The sources are derived from reading books, newspapers and

magazines, listening to TV and radio, having conversations with native speakers, studying‟

language textbooks (especially the word lists, end glossaries often provided in the textbooks),

and consulting dictionaries. The second step – getting the word form – means to get a clear

26

visual and/or auditory image of both the written and spoken form of words. It might be done,

for instance, by associating the new words with words with sounds similar in language(s) that

the learner is familiar with, or by seeing a word that looks like another word the learner has

already studied. As for getting the word meaning, it includes strategies such as asking other

people the meaning of the word (i.e., people who speak the same L1 or L2 native speakers),

guessing from context, using a dictionary, and so forth. After the form and meaning are

discovered, the next step is to create a strong linkage between the two. This can be done by all

kinds of consolidation strategies, such as creating and using flash cards, reviewing the material,

using mnemonics, etc. The final step, using the words, is important especially if the goal of

vocabulary learning is to have not only the perceptive, but also the productive vocabulary

knowledge. This view was echoed in Nation‟s (2001) model of word knowledge (see Chapter

One of this thesis). Hatch and Brown also indicated that making use of words is also one of the

ways to test whether knowledge gained in the previous steps is correct and to retain the words

longer in the memory.

Sanaoui (1992, 1995) presented a series of longitudinal case studies exploring adult

language learners‟ approaches19

to learning vocabulary in English and French as second

languages. The methodological tools used to collect data in the first phase were daily written

records,20

interviews, and the researcher‟s own records of materials which the participants had

used, such as course materials, dictionaries and so on. For the second phase of the study,

questionnaires were the main instrument for data collection. The results of her research showed

that language learners‟ approaches to vocabulary learning fitted generally into two categories:

19

Sanaoui did not specifically use the term “vocabulary learning strategies” in her research. She defined a learner‟s

approach to vocabulary learning as “a learner‟s study habits for learning vocabulary” (Sanaoui, 1992, p. 22). 20

Research participants were asked to keep a daily written record (a diary) of what they did in order to learn

vocabulary. In the diary, the participants had to record vocabulary items they were learning and describe specific

mnemonic procedures they applied to remember those words.

27

structured (or organized) and unstructured (or unorganized), with regards to the following five

aspects (Sanaoui, 1992, p. 46):

1. the extent to which learners engaged in independent study

2. the range of self-initiated learning activities in which learners engaged

3. the extent to which learners recorded vocabulary items they were learning

4. the extent to which learners reviewed such records

5. the extent to which they practiced using the words they were learning outside their course

The learners with a structured approach shared the following characteristics: They

organized and controlled their learning rather than being dependent on the language course

they were taking. They engaged themselves in a variety of self-initiated activities, such as

listening to radio, watching videotapes, speaking the target language with friends. The records

of vocabulary they kept were very systematic and well organized, and they viewed these

records extensively. The learners who fell into the unstructured category relied mainly on the

course, and their range of self-initiated activities was very restricted. Their records of the

vocabulary were minimal and tended to be ad hoc, and they did not review or very rarely

reviewed the records (see Table 3.2 below).

28

Table 3.2. Features of a structured and an unstructured approach. (Sanaoui, 1995, p. 24)

Structured approach Unstructured Approach

Opportunities for learning vocabulary

self-created reliance on course

independent study minimal independent study

Range of self-initiated activities

extensive restricted

Records of lexical items

extensive (tend to be systematic) minimal (tend to be ad hoc)

Review of lexical items

extensive little or no review

Practice of lexical items

self-created opportunities in and outside

classroom

reliance on course

In the same year as Sanaoui, Stoffer (1995) carried out a series of studies (including

two pilot studies and a large-scale study involving 707 students) for her thesis at the University

of Alabama. The research participants of this study were students taking different language

courses at the beginner‟s level at the University of Alabama. The study aimed to measure the

frequency of the use of vocabulary learning strategies and its relationship to their previous

language learning experience, course level, language studied (i.e., German, Japanese, French,

Spanish, and Russian), previous vocabulary learning strategies, instruction, age and gender. To

collect data, Stoffer used a questionnaire consisting of 50 items derived from Oxford‟s (1989)

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)21

and 53 items from the Vocabulary

Learning Strategy Inventory (VOLSI) that she developed particularly with regard to

vocabulary learning. Stoffer divided the 53 items on the VOLSI into nine categories (see Table

3.3 below). Several strategies were classified into two different categories. For instance, the

strategy “use pantomime and gestures to practice” was categorized as “strategies involving

creative activities” (group 2) and as “strategies involving physical action” (group 7); the

21

See footnote 22 below.

29

strategy “use rhymes to remember new words” appeared in both group 5 (memory strategies)

and group 6 (visual/auditory strategies).

Table 3.3. Stoffer‟s vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy.

1. Strategies

involving authentic

language use

Read L2 newspapers and magazines

Read L2 literature and poetry

Watch L2 movies

Listen to L2 radio programs

Make up conversations with L2 speaker

Write letters using new words

Make collages with related words

Link words in list by creating a story

Write poetry using new words

Picture oneself using word in situation

Make up a sentence with each new word

2. Strategies

involving creative

activities

Use computer programs to practice words

Record words on tape and listen

Organize new words on word processor

Watch videos made for L2 learners

Write poetry using new words

Physically act out new words

Use color-coded flash cards (genders)

Link words in list by creating a story

Write letters using new words

Make collages with related words

Use pantomime and gestures to practice

Use brainstorming to recall words

Practice words by using real objects

3. Strategies used for

self-motivation

Enjoy learning new vocabulary

Feel successful when learning new words

Encourage yourself when afraid of mistakes

Pay attention to speech

Aware of incorrect use

Quiz myself or have others quiz me

Make up a sentence with each new word

Picture myself using word in situation

Try to relax when afraid of using word

Use brainstorming to recall words

4. Strategies used to

create mental

linkages

Link word to L1 similar spelling

Link word to similar sounding L1 word

Create links with already known words

Learn related topics at the same time

30

Relate new words to myself

Learn easy words first

Group new words by topic

Use natural associations (opposites)

5. Memory strategies

Use flashcards

Repeat new word aloud several times

Write down new words over and over

Review frequently

Concentrate hard to avoid distractions

Quiz myself or have others quiz me

Break lists into smaller parts


Use rhymes to remember new words

6. Visual/auditory

strategies

Arrange words on page to form patterns

Sing words or grammar paradigms

Draw pictures of new words


Give myself reward or treat

Talk to someone about feelings

Associate with preceding/following word

Use color-coded flashcards (genders)

7. Strategies

involving physical

action

Use pantomime and gestures to practice

Practice word by using real objects

Physically act out new words

Visualize new words

Relate new words to myself

Draw pictures of new words

Repeat new word aloud several times



overcome anxiety

Notice when tense or nervous

Try to relax when afraid of using word

Encourage myself when afraid of mistakes

Talk to someone about feelings


Give myself a reward or treat


organize words

Group words by grammatical class

Break word into its parts (prefix, root)

Group new words by topic

Use natural associations (opposites)

Break lists into smaller parts

Use flashcards

31

In the questionnaires, the research participants were asked to read the statements and

answer how often they use that particular strategy when encountering a new word. The Likert-

type scale was used for all responses, as illustrated below:

I ask for help from native speakers.

a. Never b. Seldom c. Sometimes d. Often e. Always

The study showed that participants believed they used the fourth category most

frequently (i.e., creating mental linkage), and the second category (i.e., strategies involving

creative activities) least frequently. Also, there seemed to be a tendency for the more

experienced learners to use strategies more frequently than the novice learners. Further, age did

play a role in the use of vocabulary learning strategies: older learners used strategies more

often than younger learners. However, gender did not make a significant difference in strategy

use. An unexpected finding from this study was that the foreign language studied influenced

the frequency of strategy use: students enrolled in the more difficult languages (i.e., Japanese

and Russian) used vocabulary learning strategies more frequently than those learning German

and Spanish.

Lawson and Hogben (1996) conducted a study of 15 Australian university students

learning the meaning of 12 new Italian words. The research participants were presented with a

number of sentences in Italian, each of which contained an unknown word. At the same time,

the participants had access to dictionary-like definitions in English. Using a think-aloud

method, Lawson and Hogben observed the strategies being used by the participants. They also

tested how well each word was learned, and correlated strategy use with recall of the word‟s

meaning. Their research shows: a) Learners who recall more words used a greater range of

strategies and used strategies more often than learners who recalled fewer words. b) The most

32

frequently used strategy was repetition. c) Strategies involving more detailed internal

information, such as analyzing the word parts, paraphrasing, or using the semantic context,

were used much less frequently.

An interesting finding from this study was the lack of positive association between the

context and the recall of the word‟s meaning. In the literature of vocabulary learning, the

importance of the use of context for learning the word‟s meaning has been repeatedly

discussed (see, for example, Nation 1990, 2001; Nagy, 1997). However, Lawson and Hogben

(1996) noticed that a rich context may be helpful for generating the meaning of the unknown

word, but it does not necessarily lead to long-term retrieval of the word‟s meaning, because

learners are likely to pay less attention to the unknown word since they could comprehend the

text or the sentence without knowing the word anyway. Hence, Lawson and Hogben (1996)

argued that it is necessary to “distinguish between the use of context for generation of meaning

of a new word and the use of context for acquisition of the meaning for subsequent recall” (p.

131).

Gu and Johnson (1996) also presented a large-scale questionnaire study of 850 Chinese

students of English at Beijing Normal University. They aimed to elicit advanced learners‟

beliefs about vocabulary learning and their self-reported vocabulary learning strategies. Also,

Gu and Johnson intended to shed light on the relationships between strategy use and the

following two dependent variables: learner‟s vocabulary size and English proficiency. They

achieved this by correlating the questionnaire-replies to the results of a vocabulary size test and

the results of the College English Test. For the study, Gu and Johnson developed a Vocabulary

Learning Questionnaire (VLQ Version 3) with 113 statements which were divided into two

major parts: The first part concerned learners‟ belief about how vocabulary should be learned.

33

The statements represented three major dimensions of beliefs: words should be memorized;

words should be acquired in context; words should be studied and put to use. Participants were

asked to rate each of the statements on a 7-point scale from Absolutely Disagree (1) to

Absolutely Agree (7).

The second part of the questionnaire focused on learners‟ use of vocabulary learning

strategies in various dimensions including:

(1) metacognitive regulation (selective attention, self-initiation)

(2) guessing strategies (using background knowledge/wider context, using linguistic

cues/immediate context)

(3) dictionary use strategies

(4) note-taking strategies (meaning-oriented or usage-oriented)

(5) memory strategies for rehearsal (e.g., by using word lists, oral repetition, or visual

repetition)

(6) memory strategies for coding (e.g., association/elaboration, imagery, visual encoding,

auditory encoding, using word-structure, etc.)

(7) activation strategies (e.g., deliberately using the vocabulary that has been studied)

Participants were also asked to rate each of the statements on a 7-point scale from

Absolutely Untrue of Me (1) to Absolutely True of Me (7). The results from the questionnaire

showed that, contrary to common assumptions about Asian learners, the participants

predominantly believed that vocabulary should be carefully studied and then put to use, not

merely be memorized. Mechanical memorization such as rote repetition was not popular

among the Chinese students either. What these students said they did most for vocabulary

learning was guessing from context, using a dictionary for comprehension or learning, and

34

taking notes. The results further showed that vocabulary size and general English proficiency

related positively to each other, and that there were positive correlations between vocabulary

size and the following strategies: self-initiation strategies, activation strategies, selective

attention strategies, dictionary look-up strategies, semantic encoding strategies, extended

dictionary strategies, and meaning-oriented note-taking strategies. But vocabulary size

correlated negatively with visual repetition.

Last but not least, Gu and Johnson discovered five types of learners based on the

clustering of the various beliefs and the strategies they examined : readers, active strategy users,

non-encoders, encoders, and passive strategy users. With regard to vocabulary size and

proficiency, the most successful learners were “readers” who used reading as a means to learn

vocabulary, and those who used a wide range of strategies (the “active strategy users”). The

“passive strategy users,” who strongly believed in memorization, were least successful.

Schmitt (1997) proposed a taxonomy which includes 58 vocabulary learning strategies.

The development of the taxonomy was based on two different sources: partially on the

distinction between discovery and consolidation proposed by Cook and Mayer (1983) and

Nation (1990), and partially on Oxford‟s (1990) classification system. Following Cook and

Mayer (1983) and Nation (1990), Schmitt first distinguished between strategies used for

discovery of a new word‟s meaning (discovery strategies) and strategies used for consolidating

a word once it had been encountered (consolidation strategies). Then these two primary

categories were further subdivided. For the subcategories, Schmitt adopted four of the six

categories in Oxford‟s (1990) taxonomy of general language learning strategies – social,

memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies – and added the category “determination

35

strategies” to make his taxonomy more complete and suitable for categorizing vocabulary-

specific strategies.22

Determination strategies are, in Schmitt‟s own words, “the kind of strategies used by an

individual when faced with discovering a new word‟s meaning without recourse to another

person‟s expertise” (1997, p. 205). Following Oxford (1990), he defined metacognitive

strategies as “a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about

planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best ways to study,” and social strategies as using

“interaction with other people to improve language learning” (ibid., p. 205).

However, Schmitt found it difficult to clearly distinguish cognitive strategies from

memory strategies because “the goal of both is to assist recall of words through some form of

language manipulation” (ibid., p. 205). Hence, in order to solve this problem, he adopted

Purpura‟s (1994) division of storing and memory strategies and decided to categorize those

strategies which are “less obviously linked to mental manipulation (repeating and using

mechanical means)” as cognitive, while memory strategies are those “closer to traditional

mnemonic techniques which either organize mental information together or transform it in a

22

Oxford (1990) proposed a strategy classification scheme. She first divided language learning strategies into two

major categories: direct and indirect. In her definition, direct strategies “directly involve the target language” and

“require mental processing of the language” (Oxford, 1990, p. 37). Indirect strategies “support and manage

language learning without directly involving the target language” (ibid., p. 135). Each major category is further

subdivided into three subcategories. Under the direct category are memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and

compensation strategies, while social, affective, and metacognitive strategies are grouped under the indirect

category. According to Oxford, memory strategies deal with memory, the entering and retrieving of information.

Cognition strategies involve manipulation of reception and production of language. Compensation strategies are

used to overcome the limitations of existing knowledge. Metacognitive strategies deal with the organization and

evaluation of learning. Affective strategies cope with management of emotions and attitudes. Social strategies

relate to learning of a language with the help of others. Based on this classification scheme, Oxford developed the

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) which is a survey instrument used to measure frequency of the

use of the six types of language learning strategies. SILL has been translated into different languages, including

Chinese, Japanese and Spanish. According to Chamot (2004), its various versions have been used extensively to

collect data on large numbers of mostly foreign language learners (see e.g., Cohen, Weaver & Li, 1998; Nyikos &

Oxford, 1993; Olivares-Cuhat, 2002; Oxford, 1990; 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000), or even

in research on vocabulary learning strategies (e.g., Stoffer 1995 as presented previously; Fu, 2005).

36

way which makes it more memorable,” such as associating, linking with prior knowledge,

using imagery, and summarizing (Schmitt, 1997, p. 206).

Determination and social strategies are grouped under discovery strategies, while social,

memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies are subcategorized under consolidation

strategies (see Table 3.4 below). Schmitt (1997) explained the rationale behind the grouping as

follows:

When encountering a word for the first time, learners must use their knowledge of the

language, contextual cues, or reference materials to figure out the new meaning

(Determination Strategies), or ask someone else who knows (Social Strategies). These

strategies for gaining initial information about a new word are labeled Discovery

Strategies. Of course, there are various other kinds of knowledge about words besides

meaning, such as word class, spelling, collocations, and register (Richards, 1976), but

determining the meaning appropriate to the situation must normally be the most

fundamental task on initial introduction. Once learners have been introduced to a new

word, it is worthwhile to make some effort to remember it using Consolidation

Strategies, which can come from the Social, Memory, Cognitive, or Metacognitive

Strategy groups. (p. 206)

According to Takač (2008), this taxonomy is “currently the most comprehensive

typology” of vocabulary learning strategies (p. 67). The individual strategies in each category

derive from relevant research literature, learners‟ retrospective descriptions of their own

strategies, and teacher‟s experiences. Based on this classification scheme, Schmitt (1997) then

completed a survey study of Japanese students in English as Foreign Language classes. The

aim of his study was to investigate which strategies learners use most frequently and which

37

they believe to be most helpful to discover and consolidate word meaning. The findings

showed that, in terms of discovering word meaning, using a bilingual dictionary was the most

frequently used strategy, and students also thought it the most helpful strategy. In terms of

consolidation of word meaning, rote repetition featured as the most frequently used and most

helpful strategy. In addition, Schmitt found that strategies requiring deeper mental processing

such as “analyzing affixes and roots,” “checking for L1 cognate,” or “using semantic map”

were low down on the list. This finding basically echoes the research results from Lawson and

Hogben (1996) as described above.

Table 3.4. Schmitt‟s vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy. (Schmitt, 1997, pp. 207-208)

Strategies for the discovery of a new word’s meaning

Determination

Analyze part-of-speech

Analyze affixes and roots

Check for L1 cognate

Analyze any available pictures or gestures

Guess from textual context

Bilingual dictionary

Monolingual dictionary

Use word lists

Use Flash cards

Social

Ask teacher for an L1 translation

Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of new word

Ask teacher for a sentence including the new word

Ask classmates for meaning

Discover new meaning through group work activity

38

Table 3.4 (continued). Schmitt‟s vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy.

Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered

Social

Study and practice meaning in a group

Teacher checks student‟s flash card or word lists for accuracy

Interact with native speakers

Memory

Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning

Image word‟s meaning

Connect word to a personal experience

Associate the word with its coordinates

Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms

Use semantic maps

Use scales for gradable adjectives

Peg Method

Loci Method

Group words together to study them

Group words together spatially on a page

Use new word in sentences

Group words together within a storyline

Study the spelling of a word

Study the sound of a word

Say new word aloud when studying

Image word form

Underline initial letter of the word

Configuration

Use Keyword Method

Affix and root (remembering)

Part of speech (remembering)

Paraphrase the word‟s meaning

Use cognates in study

Learn the words of an idiom together

Use physical action when learning a word

Use semantic feature grids

Cognitive

Verbal repetition

Written repetition

Word lists

Flash cards

Take notes in class

Use the vocabulary section in the textbook

Listen to tape of word lists

Put English labels on physical objects

Keep a vocabulary notebook

Metacognitive

Use English-language media (songs, movies, newscasts, etc.)

Testing oneself with word tests

Use spaced word practice

Skip or pass new word

Continue to study word over time

39

Reviewing literature on vocabulary learning strategies, Nation (2001) proposed a

taxonomy which tries to divide vocabulary learning strategies into the following three primary

groups: (1) planning vocabulary learning, (2) sources of vocabulary knowledge, and (3)

learning processes. Table 3.5 gives an overview of the taxonomy:

Table 3.5. Nation‟s taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies. (Nation, 2001, p. 218)

General class of strategies Types of strategies

Planning: choosing what to

focus on and when to focus on

it

Choosing words

Choosing the aspects of word knowledge

Choosing strategies

Planning repetition

Source: finding information

about words

Analyzing the word

Using context

Consulting a reference source in L1 or L2

Using parallels in L1 and L2

Processes: establishing

knowledge

Noticing

Retrieving

Generating

Under the “planning” category are strategies involving decisions regarding “where to

focus attention, how to focus attention, and how often to give attention to the item” (Nation,

2001, p. 218). The fundamental arguments for having a plan for vocabulary learning can be

summarized as follows: Nation points out that there are various levels of vocabulary (e.g., high

frequency, low frequency, academic, and technical vocabulary) and various aspects of

vocabulary knowledge (i.e., form, meaning, and use; see the introductory chapter in this thesis

for more detail). Hence, learners should be aware of “what their vocabulary goals are and

should choose what vocabulary to focus on in terms of these goals” (ibid., 218), and of what

aspects of word knowledge to choose and focus on. Further, according to Nation, learners

should know how to achieve their goals by “choosing the most appropriate strategy from a

range of known options and deciding how to pursue the strategy and when to switch to another

40

strategy” (ibid., p. 219). However, knowing what to focus on and how to choose strategies is

not sufficient. Learners should also make a plan for reviewing the learned items, for example,

“an informal schedule for returning to previously studied items on word cards and the

recycling of old material, or […] more organized review using a computer or filing system”

(ibid., p. 219).

As for the second category, “source,” it means to find information about the new word.

The information may include all or some aspects of word knowledge, depending on the

learning goals. Learners can get the information from various sources: from the target word

itself (e.g., analyzing word parts), from the context in which the word appears, from

monolingual or bilingual dictionaries, from asking other people including teachers, native

speakers, or peers, or from using parallels with other previously learned languages (ibid., pp.

219-221).

The third category, “processes,” involves establishing vocabulary knowledge gained

from the sources and making it accessible when needed. Nation includes three major processes:

noticing, retrieving, and generating. Each of them plays an important role in remembering

words. Strategies for noticing involve seeing the word as an item to be learned, and then

recording it, for example, by putting it in a vocabulary notebook, a word list, or a word card

(flash card), or by visually or orally repeating the word.

Retrieval, in the context of vocabulary learning, means recalling the previously studied

word knowledge. It is a significant process because it increases the possibility of a word being

remembered: “A word may be noticed and its meaning comprehended in the textual input to

the task, through teacher explanation or dictionary use. If the word is subsequently retrieved

during the task then the memory of that word will be strengthened” (ibid., p. 66f.). Strategies

41

for retrieval may be receptive or productive. Receptive retrieval includes, for instance, when

seeing or hearing the word during reading or listening, learners try to recall the meaning of the

word. A productive retrieval strategy means to recall the written or spoken form of the word

when writing and/or speaking (ibid., pp. 221-222).

Generative strategies include the following: attaching new aspects of knowledge to

what is known through instantiation (visualizing examples of the word), word analysis,

semantic mapping, and using scales and grids, using the word (e.g., in new context,

collocations, and sentences) across the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing,

and finally, using the keyword method.

Takač (2008) is the most recent book-length publication that concentrates primarily in

vocabulary learning strategies. The author describes three large-scale empirical studies. The

aim of the first study was to construct a questionnaire to measure the frequency of vocabulary

learning strategy used by elementary school students (aged between 10 and 14) learning

foreign languages (e.g., English, German, Russian … etc.) in Croatia. By constantly testing,

modifying, and conducting several factor analyses, the Vocabulary Learning Strategy

Questionnaire for Elementary Schools (VOLSQES) was developed. It consists of 27 statements

(i.e., individual vocabulary learning strategies), such as:

I use new words in a sentence in order to remember them.

I make word lists and write their translations in my mother tongue.

Further, Takač classifies the vocabulary learning strategies listed in the questionnaire

into three broad categories: (1) Formal vocabulary learning and practicing, (2) Self-initiated

independent vocabulary learning, and (3) Spontaneous (incidental) vocabulary learning

(acquisition). The first category refers to strategies involving rote memorization, reliance on L1,

42

and a metacognitive aspect of regular and planned revision. The second category includes the

strategies of exposure to the target language and those strategies that reveal an elaborated

approach to vocabulary study including the use of memory strategies. The third category

consists of spontaneous vocabulary learning in naturalistic learning situations as well as

communication strategies (ibid., p. 100). Table 3.6 below illustrates the classification:

Table 3.6. Vocabulary learning strategy classification proposed by Takač (2008).

Strategies of formal

vocabulary learning

and practicing

Repeating new words aloud when studying

Repeating words mentally

Writing down words repeatedly to remember them

Testing oneself

Testing oneself with word lists

Regular reviewing outside classroom

Remembering words if they are written down

Planning for vocabulary learning

Making word lists

Using spaced word practice

Translating words into L1

Self-initiated

independent

vocabulary learning

Taking notes when watching films and TV programs

Taking notes while reading for pleasure

Imaging word‟s orthographical form

Grouping words together to study them

Connecting words to physical objects

Imaging word‟s meaning

Associating words with the context

Reading and leafing through dictionary

Using new words in sentences

Spontaneous

(incidental)

vocabulary learning

(acquisition)

Remembering words from books, magazines

Using circumlocution

Listening to songs in the target language

Remembering words from the Internet

Associating news words with already known

Using synonyms in conversations

Remembering words from films and TV programs

Takač‟s second study focused on the relationship between vocabulary learning

strategies and vocabulary teaching strategies. It was based on the assumption that “learners

may select their language learning strategies under the direct influence of teaching strategies

43

employed by their teachers” (Takač, 2008, p. 105; this idea was inspired by O‟Malley &

Chamot, 1990). Takač aimed to discover whether there is a difference in vocabulary learning

strategy usage between a group of learners whose teachers use corresponding vocabulary

teaching strategies and those learners whose teachers do not use them, and whether there is a

difference between vocabulary teaching strategies as perceived by learners and their use of

vocabulary learning strategies (ibid., p. 107).

Over 350 Croatian primary school students learning English and their teachers

participated in this study. A questionnaire was again the main instrument for data collection.

The VOLSQES developed in the first study was used, together with another questionnaire

containing 29 statements about learners‟ perception of vocabulary teaching strategies. Research

participants were asked to choose one of the three responses to each of the statements, for

instance,

The teacher tells us to group words.

1. Never 2. Sometimes 3. Always.

In addition, classroom lessons were observed and videotaped to determine whether a

teaching strategy was presented or not. Learning materials (i.e., language textbooks and

workbooks) were analyzed as it was assumed that the choice of teaching strategies is often

influenced by tasks presented in learning materials.

The study results showed that vocabulary learning strategies used by learners were

mostly independent of vocabulary teaching strategies applied by their teachers. That is, “using

a VTS and giving a vocabulary task targeting the use of a particular VLS do not guarantee that

learners will indeed use that VLS in doing the task. Learners may opt for VLS that are

44

available to them or are simpler for them to use. [...] This means that learners select their own

VLS regardless of the VTS employed” (ibid., p. 133).

However, there was a certain degree of association between certain teaching strategies

and compatible learning strategies. For instance, when the teacher presented the meaning of a

word with a picture, his/her students tried to memorize it by linking it to the mental image of

the word‟s meaning. Further, if the teacher asked the students to check the meaning of a word

in a dictionary, the learners more often chose this resource to learn new words.

Based on these findings, Takač concluded that “training in vocabulary learning

strategies should begin early enough for the learners to develop and acquire a satisfactory

inventory of VLS. [...] In order to be successful, strategy training demands a constant

cooperation between teachers and learners in sharing their observations, experiences and

problems connected with vocabulary learning” (ibid., p. 133).

The third research by Takač was a cross-linguistic survey study aiming to explore the

difference in vocabulary learning strategies used by learners of two different foreign languages.

The difference in frequency was the main concern. Participants were 322 learners of English

and 353 of German. All of them were elementary school students in Croatia, aged between 11

and 14. The VOLSQES was used again as the only instrument for data collection.

The results of the statistic analysis showed that the two groups of learners used a large

part of the 27 vocabulary learning strategies differently in terms of frequency. Generally,

English learners more frequently used the following vocabulary learning strategies which are

all classified under the category of spontaneous incidental vocabulary learning in the

classification Takač proposed. For example:

Remembering words from books, magazines

Remembering words from the Internet

45

Using synonyms in conversations

Remembering words from films and TV programs

Using circumlocution

Listening to songs in the target language

Learners of German, on the other hand, used strategies that were grouped under the first

category (i.e., formal vocabulary learning and practicing) and the second category (i.e., self-

initiated independent vocabulary learning) more often. For instance (the number behind the

strategy indicates the category number):

Regular reviewing outside classroom (1)

Testing oneself (1)

Testing oneself with word lists (1)

Remembering words if they are written down (1)

Using spaced word practice (1)

Imaging word‟s meaning (2)

Imaging word‟s orthographical form (2)

Grouping words together to study them (2)

Connecting words to physical objects (2)

Takač attributed the differences in the use of vocabulary learning strategies between the

two groups to the degree to which the learners were exposed to the two languages:

Learners of English seem to benefit from the fact that films and other TV programs in

Croatia are subtitled and not dubbed. They are exposed practically daily to authentic

English. Because of a large amount of the language input, learning of English has

certain characteristics of L2 learning environment. In such a learning context, learners

have an opportunity to develop VLS uncommon in formal learning contexts. (Ibid., p.

144)

Therefore, Takač concluded that the position of the foreign language in the learning context

does play a part in the selection and use of the vocabulary learning strategies.

46

Summary

In this chapter, I have reviewed the most representative studies dealing with vocabulary

learning strategies as a whole since the late 1980s. Most of them aimed to investigate learners‟

use of vocabulary learning strategies and/or to put forward a classification scheme.

As for the classification scheme, the existence of distinct strategy classifications

indicates that there is a lack of a consistent, widely accepted system to describe strategies.

While some researchers use vocabulary learning steps as categories to classify vocabulary

learning strategies, it is not uncommon for other researchers to categorize them as learning

activities. Table 3.7 below summarizes the different strategy categories/clusters used in the

studies reviewed in this chapter.

The reason for the lack of a consistent classification system may be that a certain

degree of arbitrariness in the classification schemes could not be entirely avoided, as some

strategies could be classified under several categories (Schmitt, 1997). However, among the

studies presented, Schmitt‟s (1997) vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy has been

recognized as the most extensive and comprehensive. Nevertheless, as Schmitt himself

admitted, “[t]he present taxonomy ... should not be viewed as exhaustive, but rather as a

dynamic working inventory which suggest the major strategies” (p. 204). His words indicate

that there could still be space for revision and/or augmentation.

47

Table 3.7. Overview of the categories used in the reviewed studies.

Studies Categories used in the vocabulary learning strategy classification

Ahmed (1989) Information sources

Dictionary use

Memorization

Practice

Preferred source of information

Note-taking

Hatch & Brown

(1995) Encountering new words

Getting the word form

Getting the word meaning

Consolidating word form and meaning in memory

Using the word

Stoffer (1995) Strategies involving authentic language use

Strategies involving creative activities

Strategies used for self-motivation

Strategies used to create mental linkages

Memory strategies

Visual/auditory strategies

Strategies involving physical action

Strategies used to overcome anxiety

Strategies used to organize words

Gu & Johnson

(1996) Metacognitive regulation

Guessing strategies

Dictionary use strategies

Note-taking strategies

Memory strategies for rehearsal

Memory strategies for coding

Activation strategies

Schmitt (1997)

Discovery strategies

o Determination

o Social

Consolidation strategies

o Social

o Memory

o Cognitive

o Metacognitive

Nation (2001) Planning

Source

Processes

Takač (2008) Strategies of formal vocabulary learning and practicing

Self-initiated independent vocabulary learning

Spontaneous (incidental) vocabulary learning (acquisition)

With regards to the methodologies employed to investigate learner‟s use of vocabulary

learning strategies, a large number of the studies used questionnaires as the primary or the only

instrument to collect data (e.g., Ahmed, 1989; Porte, 1988; Sanaoui, 1992, 1995; Stoffer, 1995;

48

Gu & Johnson; 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Takač, 2008). The research participants were asked to

either tick a box or circle a number. As Nation (2001) emphasized, such method reveals

information about what learners say they usually do, or what learners believe they usually do

for vocabulary learning. Those findings do not inform us much about learners‟ actual use of

strategies.

Further, most of the studies focused on frequency (i.e., how frequently do the learners

use a specific vocabulary learning strategy?) and on range (i.e., do learners apply a wide or

narrow range of the strategies?). Knowing vocabulary learning strategy A is used more than B,

or the discovery of whether learners use a wide range of strategies might give us a general

picture of what learners usually do for vocabulary learning. However, these findings do not

reveal much about how the strategies were applied and how well they were applied. In my

opinion, the “how”-aspect is as essential as the “what”-aspect in the vocabulary learning

process, and should not be neglected in the research.

Third, the majority of the large-scale survey studies have been conducted within a

quantitative framework. Through statistical calculation, they aimed to explore the following

two issues:

a) What vocabulary learning strategies does a certain large group of learners use (e.g., Japanese

learners of English in Schmitt, 1997; Chinese learners of English in Gu & Johnson, 1996)?

b) What is the correlation between the variables of individual learner differences and the use of

vocabulary learning strategies (e.g., good vs. weak language learners; beginners vs.

experienced learners; learners of German or Russian vs. learners of English; female vs. male

learners; young vs. older language learners)?

49

Individual differences have been considered a powerful factor in language acquisition.

Investigating vocabulary learning strategies has been viewed as a way to shed light on

differences between individual learners (Takač, 2008). However, in my opinion, the

quantitative studies focus mainly on the groups and different variables, not on the individuality.

McGregor‟s (2006) study reveals that learners “have the ability to view themselves as

individuals within a larger diverse group” (p. 92), and “individual learners, when grouped

together, remain diverse” (p. 93). I agree with her view that “understanding learner

individuality will only be accomplished by studying individual learners” (p. 91).

My current research aims to bridge the gaps in the research literature mentioned above.

I conduct a multiple-case study to explore individual learner‟s use of vocabulary learning

strategies. I do not only investigate what strategies each of the research participants uses to

study vocabulary, but also look at how he/she employs the strategies during a vocabulary study

activity. A detailed description of my study and its results will be presented in Chapter Five

and Chapter Six of the present thesis.

50

Chapter Four: Mental Processes – Memory and Mental Lexicon

Cognitive processes play an important role in learning. Understanding the cognitive

processes sheds light on how humans learn. Findings from cognitive psychology are influential

because they often serve as the theoretical foundation for research on second/foreign language

acquisition/learning. Hence, the present chapter contributes to the understanding of the

cognitive aspects of vocabulary learning. I will focus on memory and mental lexicon which

play significant roles in vocabulary learning. I will explore various important aspects of

memory and mental lexicon, and then discuss their implications for second/foreign language

vocabulary learning.

4.1 Memory

Memory, generally defined as the ability to preserve and recover information that has

previously been acquired (Nairne, Lindsay, Paulhus, & Smith, 2004; Ormrod, 2008),23

is

fundamental in human learning and development. Nairne et al. (2004) state,

A world truly without memory would be devoid of thought and reason. You would

never learn; you would not be able to produce spoken language or understand the words

of others; your sense of personal history would be lost, and thereby much of your

personal identity; even motor skills, such as walking, sitting in a chair, or feeding

yourself, require memory for the complex set of muscle controls involved (p. 258).

23

In the literature, the word “memory” is used in many different ways. As Ormrod (2008) noticed, besides the

definition written above, it is sometimes used to refer to the processes of maintaining information. At other times,

it refers to the “location” or “space” where the acquired information is stored, for example, as used in “working

memory” or “long-term memory” which will be discussed in 4.1.2.

51

There is never a guarantee that every piece of the acquired information will be remembered,

because many variables determine whether information will be remembered. However, without

memory, nothing will be acquired. In other words, learning presupposes memory.

So, how does memory work? What factors influence memory? The current subchapter

aims to answer these questions.24

I will give an outline of recent research into memory

processes and memory theories. I will also introduce the theories explaining why forgetting

occurs. Last but not least, I will discuss how, according to recent research, memory can be

enhanced.

4.1.1 The Major Memory Processes

The dominant view of memory processes in contemporary cognitive psychology has

been developed based on the “information processing theory”25

which views human memory

with the following three key stages: encoding, storage, and retrieval.26

24

The search for the answers to this question has continued to expand in various disciplines including cognitive

psychology, neurosciences, and neuropsychology. Due to space limitations, I will not provide an overview of the

memory research in every related discipline. I will focus mainly on the cognitive psychological perspectives for

the present thesis. For a comprehensive overview of memory research within the framework of cognitive

psychology, neurosciences, and neuropsychology, refer to Haberlandt (1999), Ormrod (2008), and Smith and

Kosslyn (2007). 25

Information processing theory is one of the approaches used by cognitive psychologists to illustrate how

learning occurs. It focuses on “how people think about (i.e., process) information they receive from the

environment – how they perceive the stimuli around them, how they „put‟ what they‟ve perceived into their

memories, how they „find‟ what they‟ve learned when they need to use it, and so on” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 163). 26

These three terms are derived from the context of computer-based information processing. According to Ormrod

(2008), many early information processing theories (e.g., those appearing in the 1960s) often drew an analogy

between human brains and computers. They posited that, like computers, the human mind is a system which

processes information through the application of logic and rules. Like the computer, the mind has a limited

capacity for the amount of the information it can process. However, it soon became obvious that the computer-

metaphor is too simplistic. Sousa (2006), for instance, sees great differences between the human brain and the

computer: First of all, the computer cannot exercise judgment which the human mind can easily do. Second, the

computer is based on closed linear systems limited to binary code 0s and 1s, but the human brain is an open,

parallel-processing system which constantly interacts internally (between the neurons) and with the outside world.

Third, the human brain also stores information in a very different way than the computer: “The brain stores

sequences of patterns, and recalling just one piece of a pattern can activate the whole. We can also identify the

same thing in different forms [...], computers cannot deal well with such variations” (p. 40). Weiten (2004, p. 262)

also indicates that when information is stored on a hard drive, there is almost a guarantee that it remains

52

Encoding refers to the process of acquiring information and forming a memory trace

(or memory record, memory representation) (Haberlandt, 1999). Storage refers to the process

in which acquired information is put into memory and maintained there over time. Retrieval is

the process in which stored information is retrieved from memory and translated into

performance (i.e., using the information). We usually hope the to-be-remembered information

will remain in memory as long as possible. However, it is not sufficient if we cannot get the

information out of the memory store when we need it. Encoding, storing, and retrieval are of

equal importance in the memory system. As Haberlandt (1999) states, “[s]uccessful

remembering depends on a proper functioning of each of these three stages” (p. 2).

In addition, a significant characteristic of memory processes should not be neglected:

that is, memory is “constructive” in nature (Bartlett, 1932). Construction is the process in

which individuals use the information they receive and their background knowledge to build a

reasonable understanding of the world around them. Hence, during the encoding, storage and

retrieval processes, information is often modified in some way. For example, during the

encoding and/or storage processes, people may change the form of the incoming information

(e.g., from visual to auditory form), add interpretation to new information using their prior

knowledge, or simplify the to-be-remembered information by remembering the overall

meaning rather than the specific details (Ormrod, 2008). It is also very common that people

“retrieve only a portion of the information that has previously been presented to them, and they

may fill in the „holes‟ based on what is logical or consistent with their existing knowledge and

beliefs about themselves or about the world more generally” (ibid., p. 288). Hence, the recalled

unchanged unless the hard drive suddenly breaks. But the human memory changes over time. What is stored in the

brain might not stay exactly the same. Last but not least, emotion does not play a role in the computer information

process, but it does have an important part in the human cognition. Nevertheless, despite of the disagreement on

the computer metaphor, the terms – encoding, storage, and retrieval – have earned recognition and continued to be

used among information processing theorists.

53

memory could be more or less different from the information actually received. Additionally,

because people use their existing knowledge to cope with the new information, it is possible

that different people may construct different interpretations of and arrive at different

conclusions about the same given event.

So, where is the information stored, in one store or multiple stores? How is it encoded,

stored, and retrieved? How is it represented and organized in the store(s)? More importantly,

how is it possible to enrich encoding, strengthen storage and enhance retrieval to maximize

remembering, and hence, minimize forgetting? In memory research, there are various

approaches used to explore these three major processes. Different approaches lead to different

memory theories/models. I will present the most researched and discussed memory

theories/models in 4.1.2.

4.1.2 Memory Theories/Models

Various memory theories/models have been developed in the field of human memory

research. I will introduce the most well known and most researched ones: the “multi-store”

model devised by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), and the “levels of processing” (or “depth of

processing”) framework put forward by Craik and Lockhart (1972). The former is usually

regarded as a “structural” approach due to the focus it places on the different components and

their interrelationship, while the latter is regarded as a “functional” approach due to its focus

on how the mind functions and operates to process information (cf. Ormrod, 2008; Stork,

2003).

54

4.1.2.1 The Multi-Store Model

According to the multi-store model originated by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), the

human memory system is composed of three components: the sensory register (or sensory

memory), the short-term memory (or short-term store), and the long-term memory (long-term

store).27

Incoming information has to pass through the sensory register and short-term memory,

before it enters into the long-term memory, in a sequence of stages.

Figure 4.1. Multi-store memory model.

Atkinson and Shiffrin‟s model was highly influential because it presented a

comprehensive view of information processing in memory. However, theorists have continued

to modify the model over the years. The most noticeable change is the concept of short-term

memory. Contemporary memory research favors the working memory model which was

developed originally by Baddeley and Hitch (1974)28

to capture more of the dynamic

27

As Weiten (2004, p. 266) points out, “the names for these stores and their exact characteristics varied some from

one theory to the next.” Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) did draw a distinction between short-term memory and

short-term store, as well as between long-term memory and long-term store. For Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968),

short-term memory and long-term memory refer to the memory examined in the experiments, while short-term

store and long-term store are theoretical concepts used to explain results derived from memory experiments (cf.

Baddeley, 1999, p. 39). However, in most literature, the terms “short-term store” and “long-term store” are either

used interchangeably with “short-term memory” and “long-term memory,” or they are replaced by the latter terms.

In the present thesis, I shall follow the convention and use the terms “short-term memory” and “long-term

memory,” instead of “short-term store” and “long-term store,” to refer to the memory storage systems. 28

The working memory model was further elaborated by Baddeley (1990, 1992), and later slightly revised by

Baddeley (2000). See section 4.1.2.1.2 below.

External

Input

Sensory

Register

Long-

term

Memory

Short-

Term /

Working

Memory

Response Output

55

characteristics of the mechanism that controls the memory over the short-term. To be

consistent with most of the contemporary theories, I will use the term working memory from

this point on.

In the following section, I will look at each of the three components of the multi-store

model. I will present their characteristics with regard to capacity, duration (i.e., the time that

the information remains), and form of encoding/storage.29

It is important to bear in mind that,

although I will examine the three components one at a time, they are “not necessarily three

separate „places‟ in the brain” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 169).

4.1.2.1.1 Sensory Register

Our five sense modalities (or five senses) – vision/sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste

– collect a huge amount of information every day. Information first enters the sensory register.

Although it is very difficult to measure the exact duration, it is generally agreed that

information stays in the sensory register for a very brief period of time, “typically no longer

than a few hundred milliseconds” (Haberlandt, 1999, p. 10). In other words, the capacity of the

sensory register is very large, or even unlimited (Ormrod, 2008), but the duration is rather short.

Also, information held in the sensory register is thought to be unprocessed, i.e., it is

stored in its original sensory form (Coltheart, Lea, & Thompson, 1974; Cowan, 1995; Ormrod,

2008). Although researchers assume that there is a separate sensory register for each of the five

sensory modalities, iconic (visual) memory and echoic (auditory) memory are the two types of

sensory memory that have been most explored (Nairne et al., 2004; Stork, 2003).

In addition, although our five sense modalities perceive large amounts of information

every day, it is extremely difficult for our brain to take in all the information. Hence, only a

29

In some literature, such as Ormrod (2008), the third characteristic is considered a form of storage.

56

very small portion of the information will enter the working memory. In order for this

movement to take place, we must at least consciously direct our attention to the information.

Therefore, attention plays a significant role in moving information from the sensory register to

the working memory. Information that is attended to is transformed to working memory,

whereas unattended information is lost from the memory system. I will discuss the factors

influencing attention in Chapter 4.1.5.1 in more detail.

4.1.2.1.2 Working Memory

As already mentioned above, since Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed the working

memory model, the term “short-term” memory has been largely replaced by “working”

memory. However, a detailed description of the working memory model is beyond the scope of

this section.30

I will briefly describe its major components and then focus on the same three

characteristics: capacity, duration, and form of encoding/storage in the sections that follow.

The working memory is often viewed as a kind of mental workplace which controls and

monitors an individual‟s overall memory processes (Ormrod, 2008). As Ormrod elaborates,

[w]orking memory is that component of memory in which “thinking” occurs. You

might think of it as the “awareness” or “consciousness” of the memory system. It

identifies information in the sensory register that warrants attention, saves the

information for a longer period of time, and processes it further. It may also hold and

process information that it retrieves from long-term memory – information that will

help in interpreting newly received environmental input. (p. 176)

30

See Baddeley (1990, 1992, 1999, 2000) for a detailed description of working memory.

57

The working memory model consists of four components31

(Baddeley, 2000): the

central executive as a supervisory system and the three storage buffers as slave systems – the

“phonological loop,” the “visuospatial sketchpad,” and the “episodic buffer” (as shown in

figure 4.2 below).

Figure 4.2. The multi-component working memory model by Baddeley (2000).

The central executive is “the component that most strongly differentiates the idea of

working memory from the earlier conceptions of “short-term memory,” and is “what does the

work in working memory” (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 259). It determines when information is

deposited in the storage buffers and which buffer is selected for storage. It also integrates and

coordinates information between the buffers, and provides a mechanism by which information

held in the buffers can be inspected, transformed, and otherwise cognitively manipulated (cf.

Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 259).

31

The original version of the model consists of three components (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 1992,

1999): central executive, phonological loop, and visuospatial sketchpad. Baddeley (2000) added the fourth

element – episodic buffer.

Phonological

Loop

Episodic

Buffer

Visuospatial

Sketchpad

Central

Executive

Visual Episodic LTM Language

semantics

58

The first slave system, the phonological loop (or “articulatory loop”), copes with sound

or phonological information. This component is at work when we temporarily store verbal

information and engage in repetitive rehearsal, for instance, when we repeatedly rehearse a

phone number in order to temporarily keep it in our mind.

The second slave system, the visuospatial sketchpad, allows us to temporarily hold and

manipulate spatial and visual information, such as remembering shapes and colors, or the

location or speed of objects in space. It is also involved in tasks which engage planning of

spatial movements.

The episodic buffer has various features. It is a temporary storage system with limited

capacity. It integrates information from a variety of sources (i.e., phonological loop,

visuospatial sketchpad, and long-term memory), and holds episodes of information across

space and time, and hence plays an important role in the storage and retrieval of episodic long-

term memory.32

With the addition of the episodic buffer, the emphasis of the model is on the

process of integration and coordination of information, rather than on the isolation of the slave

systems (cf. Baddeley, 2000, p. 422).

Working memory is a temporary memory store with limited capacity. In terms of the

duration, studies show that information will be held only for less than 20 seconds.33

As for the

capacity of the working memory, most researchers agree that it can hold only a fairly small

amount of information at any one time,34

although it is difficult to investigate the actual

capacity in terms of a specific number of discrete items that can be stored (Anderson 1990;

Ormrod, 2008).

32

See the long-term memory section below for the definition of the term episodic memory. 33

There have been different test results regarding the durability of working memory: from a couple of seconds to

less than a minute. Refer to the experiments by Brown (1958) and Peterson and Peterson (1959). 34

For example, Miller (1956) – in his classic paper titled “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two” –

indicates that people could remember only about five to nine items (e.g., numbers, letters, words) in tasks.

59

Regarding the form of encoding/storage, researchers suggest that information is

typically recoded and stored in an auditory form in the working memory, regardless of the

form in which information is received, especially when the information is language based

(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Take the letters UGBKW as an example: If the letters are presented

in auditory form to us (i.e., when we hear them), they will also remain in auditory form in our

working memory. However, when they are presented visually to us, the visually presented

letters will be recoded or translated into an auditory form in the working memory through a

kind of silent rehearsal, i.e., we will be repeating the letters silently to ourselves.

In addition to the typical auditory recoding, Baddeley (1986) also suggested that

information can sometimes also be stored visually in the short-term memory. For instance,

when we are shown a house and then asked to describe the layout or the interior design of the

house, we usually carry out this task by visualizing the house as if we were “seeing” the house

(Nairne et al., 2004, pp. 262-263).

4.1.2.1.3 Long-Term Memory

Long-term memory is the most complex component of the human memory system and

has been more extensively studied than the other two components. It is

a repository of our knowledge of the world. This includes general knowledge, such as

the role of grammar or arithmetic, along with personal experiences, such as memories

of your childhood. [Long-term] memory holds all of the information we have retained

from the past that is not currently active (that is, in working memory). These memories

are used to interpret new experiences, and, in turn, the new events may later be added to

this store house of information” (Carroll, 2004, p. 48).

60

Researchers are generally of the opinion that long-term memory has unlimited capacity.

However, with regard to the issue of duration, theorists have not reached an agreement. Some

theorists believe that information remains in long-term memory permanently once it is stored

there, and that forgetting is merely a retrieval problem (Bahrick, 1984; Loftus & Loftus, 1980;

Penfield 1958, 1969), while others argue that information can disappear from long-term

memory through various forgetting processes. Hence, the question about the duration of long-

term memory is still inconclusive. Maybe it is most suitable to say that “long-term memory‟s

duration is indefinitely long” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 183), as its name suggests.

Considering the form of encoding/storage, Ormrod (ibid.) concludes that “[i]nformation

is probably encoded in long-term memory in a variety of ways. For example, language

provides one basis for storing information, sensory images provide another, and nonverbal

abstractions and meanings […] provide still another.” Ormrod (ibid.) also points out two

further characteristics of long-term memory: First, information stored in long-term memory

rarely remains exactly as it was previously received:

Rather than remember word-for-word sentences or precise mental images, people tend

to remember the gist of what they see and hear, along with idiosyncratic interpretations

and (often) minor or major distortions of reality. (ibid., p. 183)

This reflects Bartlett‟s view that memory is “constructive” in nature. Second, information

stored in long-term memory is interconnected: “Related pieces of information tend to be

associated together. Ultimately, probably every piece of information is either directly or

indirectly connected with every other piece” (p. 183).

61

4.1.2.2 The Levels of Processing Framework

Although the multi-store model has been very popular and influential, it was challenged

by the levels of processing framework35

developed by Craik & Lockhart in the early 1970s.

The framework focuses on the encoding process, and emphasizes how memory functions

during the encoding processes rather than the possible structures of memory. The two

researchers argued that the memory trace should be understood, not as the “result,” but rather

as a “by product” of the encoding process.

According to this framework, there are three types of encoding: structural, phonemic,

and semantic encoding. Structural encoding is a relatively shallow process which focuses on

the physical structure of the stimulus, for example, the length of a word and whether the letter

is capitalized or not. Phonemic encoding is a deeper processing than the structural encoding. It

is related to the sound aspect of the stimulus. It involves, for instance, the pronunciation of a

word, and practicing the pronunciation (silently or out loud). The deepest processing, the

semantic encoding, stresses the meaning of the input, for example, when we think about the

meaning of a word or about the object or action with which the word is associated.

While multi-store theorists emphasize the significance of rehearsal in maintaining

information in the working memory so that it will be further transferred to the long-term

memory, theorists who advocate the “levels of processing” framework argue that rehearsal per

se might keep material available, but would not enhance long-term memory retention

(Baddelely, 1999, p.41). In their view, it is the encoding process (i.e., the level/depth of

encoding) that determines whether the material will be subsequently remembered: the deeper

the encoding processing goes, the longer the information will remain. In other words, “the

35

Many researchers call it the Level of Processing “Theory.” However, Craik and Lockhart (1972) carefully stress

at the end of their paper that their approach “does not constitute a theory of memory. Rather, it provides a

conceptual framework – a set of orienting attitudes – within which memory research might proceed” (p. 681).

62

greater the contribution of meaning to these processes, the stronger the memory trace”

(Haberlandt, 1999, p. 75).

Figure 4.3. Levels of processing.

Like the multi-store memory theory, Craik and Lockhart‟s (1972) levels of processing

framework serves as the starting point for a large body of research on the type of processing.36

Nevertheless, their work has also been the subject of criticism. Critics have argued that “depth”

is a fairly vague concept and is also difficult to measure. In addition, the levels of processing

approach does not present an objective index of depth. The questions remain: How can one

determine whether one level is deeper than another? On which criterion could the

determination be based (Baddeley, 1978)? Thus, it is suggested that the terms “level” and

“depth” should be defined separately.37

With regards to the criticisms and comments, the levels of processing framework has

been revised and updated several times during the past decades. Craik & Tulving (1975) argue

36

Among them are, for instance, Craik and Tulving (1975), Hyde and Jenkins (1973), Slamecka and Graf (1978),

just to name a few. For a general review of the subsequent studies, refer to Craik (2002), Haberlandt (1999), and

Smith and Kosslyn (2007). 37

For more details on the limits of levels of processing framework, refer to Haberlandt (1999), Smith and Kosslyn

(2007), Stork (2003), and Watkins (2002).

Structural encoding

(Shallow processing)

________________________

Phonemic encoding

(Intermediate processing)

________________________

Semantic encoding

(Deep processing)

63

that information processing is most effective not necessarily when it is semantic but rather

when it involves elaboration – that is, when the learner adds information to the material to be

learned in such a way that the new material is understood, interpreted, and encoded

meaningfully.38

Lockhart and Craik (1990) admitt that their previous theoretical assumption –

that the processing of stimuli always proceeds from the shallow to the deeper level – was

inadequate and needed to be adjusted. They revised their view by taking the complex

interactions between top-down and bottom-up processes into account. In addition, in recent

years, the role of consolidation has been reconsidered. Craik (1999) argues that “deep

processing is necessary but not sufficient” (p. 102), and that both deep processing and a

process of consolidation are necessary for long-term memory (Craik, 1999, 2002). However, it

remains unclear how the process of consolidation occurs.39

Another issue that has been the subject for debate for decades is whether the levels of

processing framework should be regarded as an approach that attacks the distinction between

short-term memory and long-term memory. It is interesting to note that, in Lockhart and Craik

(1990) and Craik (2002), the authors themselves address the issue:

We (Craik and Lockhart) criticised the notion of memory stores, including the concept

of a separate capacity-limited STM [short-term memory] in which incoming

information was held before being „transferred‟ to LTM [long-term memory]. But we

retained the STM/LTM distinction, recasting the concept of STM as a temporary

activation of processes representing perceptual and conceptual aspects of incoming (or

38

See also Chapter 4.1.5.3 and 4.3.3 of this thesis. 39

According to Haberlandt (1999) and Ormrod (2008), the notion of consolidation can be traced back to Müller

and Pilzecker (1900), and is over a century old. However, it is still “not fully clear what mechanisms are at work

to produce consolidation at various intervals following initial learning” (Haberlandt, 1999, p. 63). Ormrod (2008)

stated that “At this point, theorists can only speculate about the processes involved in the consolidation aspect of

long-term storage. Possibly it involves some sort of low-level, unconscious activation or rehearsal” (p. 210).

64

recently retrieved) stimuli. So in a sense STM was thought of as a temporary activation

of parts of LTM, but the short-term activity presumably also involves perceptual

aspects of the input: Lockhart and I preferred the Jamesian term “primary memory”

(PM)40

to capture this account of STM phenomena. By this view, PM is not a store in

any sense, and is not located in one fixed place in either the cognitive system or the

brain. Rather, PM involves activation of representations that correlate with present

experience [...] and thus PM activity can be located in many different brain locations

depending on the type of information “held in mind.” (Craik, 2002, pp. 307-308)

That is to say, Craik and Lockhart stand for the retention of the distinction between

short-term and long-term memory, but their conception of short-term memory is to some extent

different: short-term memory (or primary memory as preferred by the authors) is not viewed as

a “store/box” or “separate mechanism or structure,” rather a “continued processing activity”

within the whole cognitive system, or “an active subset” embedded in long-term memory

(Lockhart & Craik, 1990).

In sum, the levels of processing framework provides a possible and logical account for

how information is encoded into the long-term memory. In addition, as Baddeley (1999) points

out, with the emphasis being laid on the encoding process and the relationship between the way

in which information is processed and the probability that it will be subsequently remembered,

the levels of processing approach is “primarily a theory of long-term memory” (Baddeley,

40

William James was the first psychologist who put forward the distinction between short-term and long-term

memory. James (1890) called these two memory systems primary memory and secondary memory to stress the

degree of the relationship of the stored information to consciousness. Primary memory is the “initial repository in

which information can be stored and made available to conscious inspection, attention, and introspection. In this

way, such information would be continually accessible” (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 243). In contrast, information

from secondary memory “cannot be retrieved without initiating an active cognitive process” (ibid., 2007, p. 243).

For more details about primary memory, refer to Craik (2002), Lockhart and Craik (1990).

65

1999, p. 41). However, the unique role of primary memory within the cognitive system should

not be neglected.

4.1.3 Forms of Long-Term Memory

In addition to memory theories, researchers are also interested in the types (or forms) of

information stored in long-term memory. For example, Anderson (1976, 1983) divides long-

term memory into two classes: declarative (explicit) and procedural (implicit) memory.

Declarative memory refers to the information of “know-what” and includes definitions of

words, facts, and rules, while procedural memory is related to the information of “know-how,”

for instance, the ability to understand and to produce language or apply our knowledge of rules

to solve a problem, and to use learning strategies.

Some researchers believe that there is an association between declarative memory and

explicit memory as well as between procedural memory and implicit memory (cf. Smith &

Kosslyn, 2007; Weiten, 2004). Explicit memory is the intentional and conscious recollection of

previous experiences and information (Weiten, 2004). It is apparent, for example, when we

consciously recall definitions of words, the time of an appointment, or an event from years ago,

that is, when we recall declarative memory. In contrast, implicit memory is incidental and

unintentional. It refers to that kind of remembering “which occurs automatically and without a

subjective feeling of remembering” (Nairne et al., 2004, p. 283). We use implicit memory all

the time in our everyday life, for instance, when we walk, speak, or ride a bicycle. All these

activities require memory, but we usually do these activities without subjective experience of

remembering the past (cf. Nairne et al., 2004, p. 283).

66

Another common classification is to further sub-divide declarative (explicit) memory

into semantic memory and episodic memory.41

Semantic memory concerns facts, concepts or

abstract knowledge about the world, such as “Ottawa is the capital of Canada,” “Dogs have

four legs.” It is not tied to the time when the information was learned, and it does not involve

personal feeling or emotion. Episodic memory, on the other hand, concerns information

specific to a particular context, such as a time and place. It refers to more personal memories,

such as a particular moment, event, or episode of our past experience. Weiten (2004) describes

the difference between the two forms of memory as follows: “Episodic memory is like an

autobiography, while semantic memory is like an encyclopedia” (p. 291).

Figure 4.4. Classification of long-term memory.

The classification of the forms of memory further leads memory researchers to assume

that different forms of memory are presented and organized in different ways. Nevertheless,

according to Weiten (2004), most research on this issue focuses on the semantic memory, i.e.,

on how semantic memory is represented and organized in long-term memory, especially on

how concepts are structured and how the semantic relationship between the concepts is formed

41

According to Stork (2003, p. 66) and Weiten (2004, p. 291), the Canadian psychologist Endel Tulving (1986,

1993) was the originator of this classification.

LTM

Declarative (Explicit):

know-what

Procedural (Implicit):

know-how

Semantic Episodic

67

in our brain. This is also the topic that researchers in the field of the mental lexicon are most

interested in. I will discuss this in more detail later in Chapter 4.2: Mental Lexicon.

4.1.4 Forgetting

So far, I have focused on how information is encoded, stored and retrieved. However,

forgetting also plays an important part during the memory processes. After all, as Dörner (1996)

points out, “Behalten und Vergessen sind komplementäre Prozesse. Was nicht behalten wird,

wird vergessen” (p. 174; cited in Stork, 2003, p. 60).42

Forgetting is the inability to recall or recognize previously learned information (Smith

& Kosslyn, 2007). It is not always a bad thing that people forget, especially when the

information is relatively unimportant: “Forgetting fulfills a selective function by uncluttering

our memories and thereby increasing the chance of recalling important information”

(Haberlandt, 1999, p. 304). There are various theories trying to explain why forgetting occurs.

The most well known theories in psychology are decay, interference, retrieval failure, and

motivated forgetting (repression).

Earlier psychologists proposed the decay theory. They believed that information stored

in the memory simply fades with time. This is a commonsense view of memory, especially

when information is rarely used or not used at all (Altmann & Gray, 2002; Loftus & Loftus,

1980; Schacter, 1999). Further, Ormrod (2008) points out that some information is more

susceptible to decay, such as the exact details of an event. People usually forget the details

more quickly than the underlying meaning or gist of the event. However, when certain details

capture key perceptual features of an event or are distinctive and unique, people tend to

42

English translation of the quotation: Remembering and forgetting are complementary processes. What is not

remembered is forgotten.

68

remember them better than the less distinctive details. Nevertheless, decay theory cannot

explain the following phenomena/questions: First, there is the tip of the tongue phenomenon.43

If the passage of time was the reason for forgetting, then why is the forgotten information later

remembered? Second, why do people often remember a trivial event (such as a joke) better

than information that was once extensively rehearsed, such as the materials studied for a quiz?

Again, if forgetting was simply caused by decay, the extensively studied information should be

stored longer (cf. Nairne et al., 2004). Hence, researchers indicate that the time factor is not as

influential as it is believed to be for the loss of information in the long-term memory.

With the proposal of interference theory, researchers suggest that people forget

information due to competition and interference from other materials over time. There are two

types of interference: retroactive and proactive interference. Retroactive interference is evident

when new information impairs old information (i.e., a backward effect). For example, when we

move to a new place and get a new phone number, it will become more and more difficult to

recall the old phone number. On the other hand, proactive interference occurs when old

information hurts the new information (i.e., a forward effect). For instance, students need to

prepare for a German vocabulary test. However, if they study French vocabulary first and then

German, then the interference from the French study will be proactive (cf. Weiten 2004;

Nairne et al., 2004). No matter which type of interference occurs, in both situations, learning

one set of material interferes with the ability to recall another (Ormrod, 2008). Thus, Ormrod

(ibid.) describes interference as a theory of confusion: “An individual has learned numerous

responses and gets them mixed up” (p. 295). She also points out that interference (or confusion)

43

The tip of the tongue phenomenon refers to the situation when we suddenly cannot remember the word we want

to use, or maybe we can only remember the initial letter of the word. This missing word might keep us thinking

every minute until we finally find it. When we recall it, we say to ourselves, “Oh, how could I forget that word?”

69

is more likely to occur when associations between pieces of information are arbitrary rather

than logical.

The third theory attributes forgetting to the failure of retrieval, i.e., the failure to

recover information from the long-term memory store. Researchers proposing this theory aim

to find out why retrieval fails, for instance, in the tip of the tongue phenomenon. They believe

the retrieval cues – “stimuli that help gain access to memories” (Weiten, 2004, p. 276) – play a

crucial role. The theory suggests that the failure is due to the absence of retrieval cues or the

mismatch between retrieval cues and cues that were present at the time of encoding of the

information. This kind of forgetting is thus also called cue-dependent forgetting (Nairne et al.,

2004, p. 276). Thus, the encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thompson, 1973) suggests

that a retrieval cue is more effective when it is consistent with the original encoding of the

information.

There are various types of retrieval cues, such as identity cues, organizational cues, and

contextual cues. Identity cues (Bourne, Dominowski, Loftus, & Healy, 1986) are cues that are

identical to the information one is trying to recall. For instance, try to fill in the blank in the

following question without looking back at Chapter 4.1.2.1.2 (working memory):

The working memory model consists of four components: the central executive,

the phonological loop, the _______________, and the episodic buffer.

Maybe the choices below will make the retrieval easier:

(a) auditory board (b) visuospatial sketchpad (c) visual pad

The choices serve as identity cues. Ormrod (2008) points out that “[r]ecognition tasks, such as

multiple-choice tests, are often easier than recall tasks, presumably because of the identity cues

that recognition tasks provide” (p. 286).

70

Organizational cues refer to cues that are presented in an organized format, rather than

in a random order. For instance, in order to remember the five Great Lakes: Huron, Ontario,

Michigan, Erie, and Superior, we can take the first letter of each lake and form the word

HOMES (using a type of mnemonic called an acronym). HOMES serves as an organizational

cue which makes retrieval of the names of the five Great Lakes easier.44

In psychology, contextual cues refer to the physical environment in which something

has been learned. Researchers argue that exposure to the same or similar environment helps

people remember. For instance, Godden and Baddeley (1975) had scuba divers learn 36

unrelated words either on shore or 20 feet below the water surface. They were then asked to

recall words in either the same or a different environment. The results showed that the divers

were able to recall more words when they were in the same environment in which they had

learned the words than when they were in the other environment (cf. Ormrod, 2008).

The fourth theory of forgetting – motivated forgetting – can be traced back to Freud

(1901, 1905, 1924, 1940).45

Freud asserted that people often repress embarrassing, unpleasant,

threatening, or painful feelings, thoughts, and memories out of conscious awareness. Hence, in

Freud‟s view, when we forget unpleasant things such as a dentist„s appointment, it may be due

to motivated forgetting.46

According to Ormrod (2008), contemporary psychology tries to

explain the relationship between repression and forgetting from the perspective of emotion

(anxiety):

44

In addition to acronyms, structural cues can be a sentence, story, rhythm, or anything else already familiar to the

learner. Refer to Ormrod (2008, p. 373) for more examples on structural cues. 45

For a more recent study on motivated repression, refer to Erdelyi (1985), Erdelyi and Goldberg (1979), Jones

(1993), Schooler (2001). 46

Although Freud‟s concept of repression has been well known for over a century and served as a source for a

large amount of research, it is important to bear in mind that it remains very controversial in the field of

psychology.

71

Painful information begins to produce anxiety whenever the relevant part of long-term

memory is approached. Because anxiety itself is unpleasant, the memory search will

tend to steer clear of the anxiety-arousing part of long-term memory. Thus, the painful

memory, as well as any other information stored in close association with it, remains

out of reach and so is essentially “forgotten.” (p. 296)

In addition to the four major theories of forgetting, Ormrod (ibid.) also mentions

“construction error” and “failure to store or consolidate” as possible reasons for why forgetting

occurs. As described earlier, human memory is constructive in nature, and construction can

lead to erroneous recall:

Construction can occur either at storage (i.e., learner-invented information is stored) or

at retrieval (i.e., the learner “remembers” information that was never encountered).

Construction at retrieval time is particularly likely to occur when there are holes in the

information retrieved – holes possibly due to decay, interference, or unsuccessful

retrieval. […] erroneous reconstruction of an event of a body of learned information is

increasingly likely to occur as time goes on. (Ormrod, ibid., p. 297)

Failure to store or consolidate refers to the fact that some information may never have

been stored in the first place, perhaps due to lack of attention to the information, or because of

some outside factor such as a serious accident which interferes with consolidation processes.

4.1.5 Memory Enhancement

As described previously, forgetting is not always a bad thing, because it unclutters our

memories and increases the chance of recalling important information. However, forgetting can

also be painful and embarrassing, especially when the forgotten information is important.

72

Hence, I now proceed to an issue that concerns most people greatly: How do we improve our

memory? In the following section, I will present the most researched subjects in memory

enhancement: paying attention/noticing, elaboration, rehearsal (practice), and mnemonics.

These methods are introduced here not only because they improve our everyday memory and

learning in general, but also because they are significant for learning vocabulary in a foreign

language. Finally, I will also briefly discuss the roles of affect and motivation in memory

processes.

4.1.5.1 Paying Attention/Noticing

As pointed out previously, paying attention/noticing47

plays an essential role in moving

information from sensory register to working memory. Ormrod (2008) also indicates that “one

reason people do not remember something they have heard or seen, then, is that they never

really paid attention to it” (p. 171). Nevertheless, attention is a limited capacity, that is, it is

simply impossible to pay attention to everything at the same time. Thus, it is of interest to

know what makes people pay more attention to a stimulus.

Ormrod (2008) listed the following features of stimuli which affect our attention:

motion, size, intensity, novelty, emotion, social cue, and personal significance. Moving stimuli

(e.g., waving hands), or stimuli which have larger size (e.g., the letter B in: a B c d), which are

more intensive (e.g., brighter colors or louder noises), which are novel or unusual (e.g., a dog

with three legs), which are strongly associated with emotion (e.g., words such as blood or

murder), all tend to draw more attention. In addition, people are more likely to pay attention to

47

Paying attention and noticing are often treated as synonyms: “If you are conscious of something, then you are

attending to it … and if are attending to something, then you are conscious of it” (Carr & Curran, 1994, p. 219).

Nation (2001) also defines noticing as “giving attention to an item” (p. 63). See Schmidt (1990, 1995) for more

discussions of attention and noticing.

73

the stimuli that other people are looking at and reacting to (the so-called social cues). Finally,

stimuli which are personally significant and/or interesting will attract more attention from

people.

Nevertheless, Ormrod (2008) also points out that, although information is transferred to

working memory through attention, it is not necessarily guaranteed that the information will

remain in the working memory and move further to the long-term memory. Paying attention is

merely the first step, the foundation. In order to keep the information in the memory longer,

more consolidation effort needs to be carried out, such as rehearsal and elaboration (see the

sections below).

4.1.5.2 Rehearsal and Distributed Practice

In memory research, the term rehearsal48

is generally defined as repeating the to-be-

remembered information over and over again in a short period of time (Ormrod, 2008; Vintere,

Hemmes, Brown, & Poulson, 2004; Weiss & Klint, 1987). Different memory theories view the

function of rehearsal differently: On the one hand, multi-store memory theorists believe that

simply repeating the material over and over again (so-called “maintenance rehearsal”) is

efficient enough for keeping information in working memory as well as in long-term memory.

On the other hand, the levels of processing approach argues that rehearsal leads to long-term

48

I note the difference in the use of the terms “rehearsal,” “practice,” and “repetition” between cognitive

psychology, educational psychology, and research on vocabulary learning and teaching. In the field of cognitive

psychology, the term rehearsal is used interchangeably with practice and repetition. In vocabulary learning and

teaching research, researchers usually use the term repetition to refer to the action or process of repeating words

over and over again for memorization (see e.g., Gairns & Redman, 1986; Nation, 1990, 2001; Schmitt 1997),

while the term practice does not only refer to repetition, but also to activities engaging practical use of words,

such as writing vocabulary exercises, playing vocabulary games … etc. (e.g., Baumann and Kame‟enui, 2004). To

follow the literature convention, I will use the term “rehearsal” in this chapter because it focuses mainly on

research on memory. In the later chapters on vocabulary learning strategy, I will use the term repetition.

74

retention only when the new information is associated with existing knowledge (also known as

“elaborative rehearsal”) (Craik & Watkins, 1973; Craik & Tulving, 1975).

Nevertheless, study findings further show that rehearsal – no matter what kind of

rehearsal is being carried out, maintenance or elaborative – will be effective only if we avoid

“massed practice,” and instead schedule “distributed practice” (Anderson, 1990; Baddeley,

1990; Nairne et al., 2004; Ormrod, 2008; Weiten, 2004).49

Massed practice is very common among learners. It refers to cramming all the study

into a very short period of time, usually the day before the exams for many students. It is an

ineffective way, especially if one wants to retain the studied material after the exams are over,

because memory research findings reveal that the most forgetting occurs immediately after

initial learning and then, as time passes, the rate of forgetting slows down (Anderson & Jordan,

1928; Pimsleur, 1967; Seibert, 1927, 1930). Hence, a better approach is to distribute the

studying over a period of time, for example, three 2-hour study sessions on consecutive days,

with other activities interspersed between the study sessions (cf. Nairne et al., 2004; Weiten,

2004).

Nairne et al. (2004) add more explanation for why distributed practice is a more

effective way to study than massed practice:

If you engage in massed practice – where you simply reread the same material over and

over again without a break – you‟re likely to think about the material in almost exactly

the same way every time it is presented. If you insert a break between study sessions,

when you see the material again there is a better chance that you will notice something

new or different. Thus, compared to massed practice, distributed practice leads to

memory records that are more diversified, elaborate, and distinctive. Also, distributed

49

This phenomenon is also known as “spacing effect” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 219).

75

study sessions provide you with opportunities to practice retrieving memories of prior

study episodes. Finally, distributing study sessions gives you a better sense of which

things you have learned well and which things you haven‟t yet mastered. (p. 271)

4.1.5.3 Elaboration

In a very broadly defined sense, elaboration refers to the process of connecting the to-

be-remembered information to other existing information in memory in our everyday lives (cf.

Nairne et al., 2004, p. 269).50

Also, the connections must be meaningful. There are numerous

ways to form this connection, such as using some kind of mental imagery, grouping several

pieces of information together and remembering them as a storyline, thus creating meaningful

associations between the to-be-remembered information. Mnemonics, such as the loci method,

peg method, and keyword method, are good examples of elaboration. I will describe them in

the section 4.1.5.4 below.

Elaboration during the encoding and/or storage processes makes later retrieval much

easier. Most of the time, it is a very effective means for the following reasons:

First, elaborated information is less likely to be confused with other similar information

stored in long-term memory (Ellis & Hunt, 1983). Second, elaboration provides

additional means through which the information can later be retrieved (Anderson, 1990,

1995); in a sense, it provides more places to look for the information. And third,

elaboration may help with inferences about what the information was likely to have

50

Ormrod (2008) gave elaboration a narrower definition by distinguishing elaboration from “meaningful learning.”

Both elaboration and meaningful learning involve making connections between new information and the things

we already know. However, while meaningful learning is “a process of relating new material to knowledge

already stored in long-term memory,” elaboration does more than that: it “embellishes” on new information by

adding interpretations, drawing inferences or assumptions using prior knowledge (p. 206; 357). Nevertheless, as

Ormrod (2008) also points out, in most literature the two terms are used without differentiation.

76

been when the information itself cannot be accurately recalled (Anderson, 1990).

(Ormrod, 2008, p. 207)

4.1.5.4 Mnemonics

Mnemonics51

are, frankly speaking, memory “tricks” or strategies that facilitate the

recall of hard-to-remember material. There are various types of mnemonics. Concerning the

relevance to vocabulary learning, I will discuss the following: the loci method, peg method,

and keyword method.52

The loci method (or method of loci, method of places – loci means places in Latin) is

based on the assumption that people can best remember places that they are familiar with, such

as their own house. Hence, if they can link the to-be-remembered information with a place that

they know very well, the location will serve as a cue to facilitate recall.

This method needs a lot of mental visualization. For example, I need to remember the

following shopping list:

ketchup, peaches, hot dogs, shaving cream, and ice cream

First, I visualize a place that I am most familiar with, and that will be my own house. I picture

a series of locations in my home in logical order. For example, I picture the path I normally

take to get from the front door to my bedroom. I begin at the front door, open the front door,

enter the foyer, climb a few stairs up to the main floor, turn right into the hallway, and proceed

through the hallway, walk pass the washroom, and then go into the bedroom. Next, I mentally

position each item on the shopping list at one of the locations with the same order of the path.

51

The term “mnemonic” is related to the Greek goddess of memory in Greek mythology (Haberlandt, 1999, p.

305). 52

These three methods are included in Schmitt‟s (1997) vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy. For Schmitt,

mnemonics also involve elaboration. See Chapter 4.3 for more description.

77

The mental images should be distinctive and vivid. For instance, I imagine the front door is all

covered in ketchup, or there are huge peaches rolling down the stairs, or shaving cream is

sprayed everywhere in the washroom. Later, when I want to remember the items, I simply

visualize the path and go through the rooms in initial order in my mind. Each item that I

associated with a specific location should spring to mind.

The loci method is also effective for remembering important points in a speech, names

of people at an event or meeting, or things needing to be done. It is particularly useful when we

need to remember things in a certain order.

The peg method (or pegword method) is another effective mnemonic for remembering

a list of items. It also heavily relies on visual imagery. This method uses a well-known or

easily-learned list of items that then serves as a series of pegs (hooks) on which the to-be-

remembered list of items is “hung” through visual imagery (Ormrod, 2008, p. 368). For

instance, the following rhymes are often used as pegs: One is a bun. Two is a shoe. Three is a

tree. Four is a door, etc.53

Take the items on the shopping list above as an example again – ketchup, peaches, hot

dogs, shaving cream, and ice cream; the first step is to memorize the words that rhyme with

numbers (e.g., one with bun, two with shoe, and so on, as peg words). Then I must link each

item of the shopping list with the pegs: the first item with a bun, the second item with a shoe,

and so on. I could start out by visualizing putting ketchup on a bun, then imagine a pair of

shoes with peaches in them. Later, when I got to the store and I think of one – bun –I will think

of the ketchup I need to purchase.

The keyword method, developed by Atkinson and Raugh in 1975, is very well known

for its effectiveness for learning foreign vocabulary. It is primarily a way of making a strong

53

For a complete list of rhymes from one to ten, see Ormrod (2008), p. 368.

78

link between the form of an unknown word and its meaning. It involves two steps after the

learner has met the unknown word and has found or been provided with its meaning:

The first step is that a learner finds a L1 word which sounds like the beginning or all of

the target L2 word. This L1 word is the Keyword. The second step is for the learner to think of

an image association between the meaning of the target word and the meaning of the keyword.

For example: an English native speaker learning German wants to memorize the German word

Fenster (window). In the first step, s/he could find an English word that sounds like Fenster,

for example fence – this word is then the keyword. In the second step, the learner creates an

image combining the two words Fenster (window) and fence, such as a window can be seen

through the fence. When the unknown word is later heard, the sound similarity invokes the

created image which prompts the L2 word‟s meaning. After the learner is familiar with the

target word, the keyword will no longer be needed to recall the meaning (Nation, 2001).

Most of the studies on the key word method investigate its effectiveness for

memorizing word meaning. Nevertheless, memorizing word meaning is not its only function.

Studies (Desrochers, Gelinas, & Wieland, 1989; Desrochers, Wieland, & Coté, 1991)

demonstrated that this method can be modified and used to acquire the grammatical gender of

German nouns that carry no semantic or morphological cues.

Memorizing the gender of German nouns is a very hard task for many learners. All the

participants of my survey mentioned that they have encountered great difficulties. We all know

it is a matter of memorization. That is what the teachers usually say to the students, too: “well,

you just need to memorize them.” However, studies show that applying the modified version of

the key word method will make memorization easier and more interesting.

The general principle of the modified version is to

79

have the learners recode the gender tag so as to make it more concrete, and form a

semantic link between the German noun and its recoded gender tag. A simple way of

recoding the feminine, masculine, and neuter genders is to substitute the concept of a

woman, a man, and an inanimate object, respectively, for them. This more concrete

representation of the gender tag then can be included easily in the formation of a mental

image. (Desrochers, Wieland, & Coté, 1991, p. 20)

For example, when learning the masculine German noun Bottich (tub), the learner with

English as L1 can, first, associate Bottich with bottle (the key word) which is physically similar

to the target word. Second, the learner creates a mental image that includes: 1) the German

noun (Bottich), 2) the keyword (bottle), and 3) a male person to represent the grammatical

gender of the noun, for instance, a man sitting in a tub and drinking from a bottle.

4.1.5.5 Affect and Motivation

Cognitive psychology has been criticized for its neglect of the affective aspects of

mental processes. Yet affect is obviously influential for learning and cognition. Affect –

generally defined as an individual‟s feelings, emotions and general moods – has various forms,

such as happiness, anxiety, excitement, pride, sadness, depression, anger, fear, and guilt (Smith

& Kosslyn, 2007, p. 330; Ormrod, 2008, p. 474). Affect is strongly interrelated to motivation.

As defined in Smith and Kosslyn (2007), “motivation refers to the propensity to action that is a

component of some affective responses. […] A primary function of emotion is to motivate

action” (p. 329).

Research findings in contemporary psychology show that affect and motivation play a

role in memory processes (Bower, 1994; Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Hettena & Ballif, 1981;

80

Hertel, 1994; Isen, Daubman, & Gorgoglione, 1987; Pugh & Bergin, 2006; Schwarz & Skurnik,

2003). When people are in a good mood (e.g., when they feel happy or excited, rather than sad

or depressed), less anxious and highly motivated, they are more likely to pay attention to

information, relate it to things they already know and creatively elaborate on it (Ormrod, 2008,

p. 475).

To summarize, in order to retain memory longer, memory researchers suggest that

people should pay attention to the stimuli, rehearse the to-be-remembered information with

time intervals, and elaborate the information. In addition to these memory enhancement

methods, the influence of affect and motivation has been increasingly considered by

contemporary cognitive psychologists. Research findings indicate that good moods and a high

level of motivation lead to better cognitive engagement in the mental processes such as paying

attention, rehearsal, and elaboration.

After a systematic exploration of human memory from the point of view of cognitive

psychology, the next subchapter is devoted to mental lexicon which specifically focuses on the

words in our mind from psycholinguistic perspectives.

81

4.2 Mental Lexicon

The mental lexicon54

is, simply speaking, the “human word-store” (Aitchison, 2003, p.

10), the word repository in our brain. It is the part of long-term memory where our knowledge

about all of the words – not only the words in L1 but also in L2 or in any other languages we

know – is stored. The knowledge of words is referred to as the semantic memory in memory

research (Stork, 2004, p. 69).

In this section, I will focus on the following question: How is meaning of words

represented in the mental lexicon (4.2.1)? I will first look at the monolingual mental lexicon

and then move on to the bilingual/multilingual mental lexicon. I will discuss the issue of

whether the meaning representations in a bilingual/multilingual mental lexicon are organized

differently from a monolingual mental lexicon (4.2.2). Research findings will be presented in

the form of a summary. Nevertheless, investigating language learners‟ mental lexica is not the

focus of my study. I do not intend to discuss the implications of the research findings on these

issues for language learning.

4.2.1 Representations of Word Meaning in the Mental Lexicon

First of all, before I proceed to the representation of word meaning in the mental

lexicon, I want to briefly discuss the question: What does the “meaning” of a word mean? For

instance, what does it mean when people say they know the meanings of bird, blue, or happy?

This issue has been a subject of debates in philosophy, psychology and linguistics, and the

discussion can become very complex and obscure (Schmitt, 2000). In what follows, I will only

outline the key aspects.

54

“Lexicon” is “dictionary” in Greek. However mental lexicons share very little similarity with book dictionaries.

For the difference between them, refer to Aitchison (2003), chapter 2.

82

Schmitt (2000) points out that at the most basic level, “meaning consists of the

relationship between a word and its referent (the person, thing, action, condition, or case it

refers to in the real or an imagined world)” (p. 23). The relationship is rather arbitrary and

needs to be agreed by people within a group or a community (e.g., speakers of a language). For

instance, a large and heavy animal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large

ears could have been called (for example) a muno or a bango in English. Only agreement

within the English speaking community that the described animal should be labelled as

elephant gives this word any meaning. Nevertheless, the relationship between a word and its

referent is not usually one to one. More often, the word refers to a class or category such as dog,

car, or flower. There are various kinds of dogs, thus, the word dog cannot exactly describe

each one; rather, it represents our “concept” of what a dog generally looks like (Schmitt, 2000).

Hence, for most words, meaning is considered very closely related to its concept,55

not to the

referent.

A concept is a “mental representation that determines how things are related or

categorized. It enables us to group things together, so that instances of a category all have

something in common” (Harley, 1995, p. 176). Every word has an underlying concept, as

Vygotsky (1965) stated, “from the point of view of psychology, the meaning of every word is a

generalization or a concept” (p. 120).56

Based on this idea, when individuals claim that they

know the meaning of the word rose, it implies that they know the concept of rose, and

55

The question of “what is a concept” and its relationship to word meaning has been discussed since the time of

ancient Greek. A thorough discussion of it is beyond the scope of this thesis. Refer to Harley (1995), and Murphy

(1991) for more discussion. 56

However, “not all concepts are labelled by a word” (Harley, 1995, p. 176). As Aitchison (2003) points out, the

meaning of a word overlaps “with the concept to a large extent, though not necessarily totally: the overall concept

may extend beyond the sections labeled with a word” (p. 43)

83

furthermore, they are able to identify roses as roses, and to use the word rose only to refer to

roses.57

In sum, “[t]o describe the meaning of a word, then, we need to describe the concept it

represents” (Schmitt, 2000, p 23). In the sections below, I will outline the most discussed

approaches/theories of meaning representation. I will first introduce the “fixed-meaning

approach” (4.2.1.1 including “semantic feature analysis” and “feature list theory”), followed by

descriptions of the “fuzzy-boundary approach” (4.2.1.2 including “prototype theory” and

“exemplar theory”), the “semantic network approach” (including “hierarchy theory” and

“spreading activation theory”), and finally “schema theory” (4.2.1.3).

4.2.1.1 Fixed-Meaning Approach

Semantic feature analysis (Bierwisch, 1970; Katz & Fodor, 1963, 1964) is regarded as

a fix-meaning approach (Aitchison, 2003) because it argues that the meaning of a word can be

decomposed into smaller units called semantic features. These features form the core meaning

of the word and serve as a check list to identify whether an entity is an instance of the word.58

Aitchison (2003, p. 45) gives the word “square” as an example. It has four features:

1. a closed, flat figure

2. having four sides

3. all sides being equal in length

4. all interior angles being equal

57

Nonetheless, how do individuals identify a rose as a rose? How do they pick out an instance of rose in the

environment? The answers involve the process of categorization. Categorization is a crucial and inevitable process

in identifying a concept. Lakoff (1987, p. 5) describes it as follows: “There is nothing more basic than

categorization to our thought, perception, action, and speech. Every time we see something as a kind of thing, for

example a tree, we are categorizing. Whenever we reason about kinds of thing – chairs, nations, illnesses,

emotions, any kind of thing at all – we are employing categories.” Thus, the notions of meaning and of concept

are closely bound to that of categorization. 58

Hence, this approach is also termed as “check list theory” (Fillmore, 1975) or “decompositional theory” (Harley,

1995).

84

Each of these features is “necessary” so that the entity can be identified as a square, and when

combined, they are “sufficient” to define a square, and only a square. In addition, an entity is

either an instance of the concept or it is not, with nothing in-between.

Harley (1995) points out that this approach is useful for some domains where there is a

clear-cut relationship between the concepts of the domain. For instance, in the concepts of

kinship: man, woman, boy, and girl: the meaning of these four words can be captured by the

combination of the features [human], [male], [female], [adult] (see Table 4.1 below).

Table 4.1. An example of semantic feature analysis.

man woman boy girl

human + + + +

male + – + –

female – + – +

adult + + – –

However, semantic feature analysis has been heavily criticized in that only very few

words have a straightforward set of features that are common to all their members. Taking the

word “bird” as an example: At first sight it seems easy to specify the critical attributes of

“bird” as “animal,” “can fly,” “has feathers” and “has wings.” Nevertheless, with these

attributes, penguins and ostriches will not be identified as birds because they cannot fly.59

With regards to the problems described above, Rips, Shoben, and Smith (1973) and

Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974) proposed the feature list theory which suggests that there are

two types of semantic features: defining features and characteristic features. The former are

“essential to the underlying meaning of a word and relate to properties that things must have to

be a member of that category (for example, a bird is living, it is feathered, lays eggs, and so

59

For more problems of the semantic feature approach, refer to Aitchison (2003), Fillmore (1975), Geeraerts

(1988), Harley (1995), and Kleiber (1998).

85

forth),” while the latter are “usually true of instances of a category but are not necessarily true

(for example, most birds can fly but penguins and ostriches cannot)” (Harley, 1995, p. 186).

The essential problem of the feature list theory is that it assumes there are defining

features that one can depend on to categorize. However, the boundary between concepts is

often fuzzy. Sometimes there is no single set of defining features for a category that effectively

includes all members of the category and excludes all items that are not part of the category.

For example, among the items listed below, it is not easy to decide which one does not fit, and

to agree on the defining and characteristic features that exclude this item:

apple, pear, banana, pineapple, guava, orange, mango, cherry, pea,

strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, grape, grapefruit, watermelon,

cantaloupe, tomato, kiwi

4.2.1.2 Fuzzy-Boundary Approach

Contrary to the fixed-meaning approach, the fuzzy-boundary approach argues that the

boundary between many concepts is not a clear-cut one. For instance, Berlin and Kay‟s (1969)

research indicate that people did not agree on the borderline between the colors red and orange.

Labov (1973) studied various participants‟ naming of drawings illustrating cups, mugs, vases,

bowls with different heights, widths, the presence or absence of handle, etc. Certain items were

classified easily as belonging to a certain category, while some borderline cases were not. In

particular, when a certain item was filled with various things (i.e., in different context), it was

named differently. For example, an item was called a bowl when it was seen empty or full of

mashed potatoes. However, when it contained flowers, then it was called a vase; or a cup when

it was filled with coffee. As Labov (ibid., p. 340) points out, “In any kitchen, there are many

86

containers that are obviously bowls, cups, mugs, and dishes. But there are others that might be

called cups or might not; or might be a kind of cup, according to some, but a kind of dish

according to others.” Also, the context plays a role in how an item is categorized (Ormrod,

2008, p. 257).

Also, the fuzzy-boundary approach suggests that many concepts are difficult to classify

in terms of necessary and sufficient features. “Objects can lack important features yet still be

identified as positive instances of a particular concept” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 255). For example, a

common feature of chairs is that they have four legs. But nowadays there are modern looking

chairs which have only two or even just one leg. Is it appropriate not to categorize them as

chairs? Hence, researchers supporting the fuzzy-boundary approach argue that members of the

same category usually share “family resemblance” (Familienähnlichkeit, Wittgenstein, 1958),

that is, category members may share some of the characteristic features, but it is not necessary

for each member to have all of the features.

However, if concepts have fuzzy boundaries, how does an individual cope with

categorization? That is, how does an individual identify an item as a member of a concept?

According to prototype theory, put forward by the psychologist Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s

(Rosch, 1973a, 1973b, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1977, 1978; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Rosch et al.,

1976), human beings do not rank all members of a category equally: There are best, not so

good, and bad examples. Further, people categorize an object by matching it against the

prototype, “the best or most representative member of the category” (Nairne et al., 2004, p.

316). Prototype theorists believe that people store “abstract representations of category

prototypes in long-term memory and use them to help decide category membership” (ibid., p.

316). For instance, in North America, most people might consider a robin the prototype of the

87

category bird, while canaries and doves are often considered less “birdy,” owls and ducks are

bad birds, and a penguin is a very bad bird. Hence, when they are asked to decide whether a

creature is a bird at all, they might analyze the characteristics of robins and allow anything

which sufficiently resembles it to belong to the category bird. This explains how humans deal

with untypical or damaged examples, for instance, why ostriches, emus and one-legged

blackbirds can be accepted as birds: because they have at least one feature in common with the

prototype (Aitchison, 2003).

Although prototype theory provides powerful explanations for some problems that the

semantic feature analysis cannot solve, it is not a “magic solution,” especially when it comes to

cope with a polysemy, a word with a number of distinct, yet related meanings, such as over

which has about six different meanings depending on the context (Lakoff, 1987). The question

remains: how is it possible to decide which meaning is more prototypical than the others? Even

when it is possible to agree that a certain meaning is most prototypical, it is not uncommon that

the other meaning has nothing in common with it. Thus, why do the meanings belong to the

same concept? How are the meanings related to each other?60

Furthermore, prototype theory does not cope well with conceptual combinations such

as pet fish. Osherson and Smith (1981) showed that while cat was the best representative of the

category pet, and trout the prototype of the category fish, the best example of the category pet

fish was goldfish (which is a fairly atypical members of the category fish).

Comparing with a prototype is not the only way people categorize. Based on exemplar

theory (Carmichael & Hayes, 2001; Reisberg, 1997; Ross & Spalding, 1994), people also

match the object to all of the exemplars (examples), rather than to the single prototype of a

60

For a detailed description of prototype theory and thorough discussions about the problem with polysemy and its

probable solutions, refer to Aitchison (2003), Kleiber (1998), Lakoff (1987), Taylor (1995).

88

given category. “If the object is similar to many examples in a particular category, then we

would categorize the object as a member of that category” (Nairne et al., 2004, p. 316).

Ormrod (2008) takes the concept fruit as an example:

Consider the concept fruit: Many things are likely to come to mind here: Apples,

bananas, grapes, mangos, and kiwifruit are all possibilities. If you encounter a new

instance of fruit – a blackberry, let‟s say – you could compare it with the variety of

exemplars you have already stored and find one (a raspberry, perhaps) that is relatively

similar. (p. 258)

However, exemplar theory is relatively new in the concept categorization research. At this

stage, its impact for meaning representation in the mental lexicon still needs more exploration.

4.2.1.3 Semantic Network Approach

The essential idea of the semantic network approach is that “the meaning of a word is

embedded within a network of other meanings. [...] knowledge is given meaning only by the

way in which it relates to other knowledge” (Harley, 1995, p. 179). As Aitchison (2003)

stresses, “Words cannot be treated as if they were a swarm of bees – a bundle of separate items

attached to one another in a fairly random way. They are clearly interdependent” (p. 75). The

question is this: How are meanings linked to each other from the network point of view?

An early view regarding meaning organization in a network was that concepts were

linked as a hierarchy (Collins & Quillian, 1969, 1972), with more general, superordinate

concepts at the top of the hierarchy (e.g., animal) and more specific, subordinate concepts

below it (e.g., bird, fish). Each concept is a “node.” Connected to each node are semantic

89

features, such as “has skin” and “can move around” for “animal” (see Figure 4.5 for an

illustration of the hierarchy).

Figure 4.5. Illustration of the hierarchical network in Collins and Quillian (1969, p. 241).

Collins and Quillian (1969) conducted an experiment concerning the relationship

between retrieval time and concept hierarchy. Participants were asked to verify the following

sentences: “A canary is a canary.” or “A canary is a bird” or “A canary is an animal,” and their

reaction times to each of the sentences were recorded.61

Collins and Quillian assumed: first, it

takes time to move up a level in a hierarchy (e.g., from canary to bird, or from bird to animal).

Second, one can move one level at a time. One step is dependent on completion of another step.

Hence, it takes two steps to move from, for instance, canary to animal. Third, the time for the

moving-up processes is additive. Hence, the more levels there are to move up, the longer it

takes. For example, it takes longer to move from canary to animal than from canary to bird,

because the former process takes two steps (i.e., from canary to bird, and then from bird to

animal). The result of the study showed that these predictions were correct. However, Collins

61

This is an example of the sentence verification task which was commonly used in semantic memory research.

The reaction time is an index of the difficulty in making the decision.

90

and Quillian‟s (1969) methodology was heavily criticized and the results were regarded as

unsubstantiated.62

The model is regarded as too inflexible and makes more logical than

psychological sense. Overall, researchers do not agree that concepts are always represented in

hierarchy.

Collins and Loftus (1975) proposed a spreading activation theory as a revision to

Collins and Quillian‟s (1969) hierarchy model. Like the hierarchy theory, each concept is

assigned a node and is connected with every other. However, the nodes in spreading activation

theory are not hierarchically organized; instead, they are linked together based on semantic

relatedness (similarity). The lines (or paths) have varying lengths (strength) which reflect the

semantic relatedness: the more closely related concepts are linked closer together within the

network (see Figure 4.6 below). The length of the lines between the concepts can be

determined by taxonomy and/or by typicality. According to the theory, when someone sees,

hears, or thinks of a certain concept, the node assigned to this concept is activated, and this

activation spreads out along the paths to concepts that are closely related.

Figure 4.6. Spreading activation theory by Collins and Loftus (1975, p. 412).

62Refer to Rips et al. (1973), Harley (1995), Aitchison (2003) for criticisms of hierarchy theory.

91

4.2.1.4 Schema Theory

Schema theory, originally put forward by Bartlett (1932),63

also plays a role in

concept/meaning representation in the mental lexicon. A schema is “an organized cluster of

knowledge about a particular object or event abstracted from previous experience with the

object or event” (Weiten, 2004, p. 273). Bartlett argues that our memory is not only affected by

the information that is presented at hand, but also by our prior knowledge that is connected to

the information, i.e., by the schema. A schema can be activated by a word itself in isolation or

by the context it is embedded in. If there is not enough context to activate a schema, then the

mind hypothesizes a probable one. (Schmitt, 2000, p. 28). For instance, there is the concept of

“a professor‟s office”: Brewer and Treyens (1981) tested the recall of 30 students who had

visited an office which they believed to belong to a professor. Most students recalled correctly

things that were typically seen in an office, such as desks and chairs. A few students

remembered items that did not usually appear in an office, such as a wine bottle or a tennis

racket. The most interesting results were that nine students falsely recalled books that were

actually not there.

In sum, with regard to how people represent word meaning in the mental lexicon, it is

very possible that people categorize in more than one way, because the human mind is very

flexible. I agree with Ormrod (2008) that “we do not necessarily need to choose just one theory

as being the „right‟ one to the exclusion of the others” (p. 259). In my view, it is more

important to bear in mind that the words do not exist in isolation in our mental lexicon; they

are connected to each other in complex ways.

63

Schema theory was originally developed by Bartlett to explore the constructive nature of long-term memory. It

was then further developed by Anderson (1995), Anderson et al. (1977), Minsky (1975), Rumelhart (1980),

Rumelhart and Ortony (1977) and has an influence on script theory by Schank and Abelson (1977), Schank and

Kass (1988).

92

4.2.2 L1 vs. L2 Mental Lexicon: Integrated or Separate?

Bilingualism or multilingualism is a very common phenomenon (Romaine, 1995). In

fact, all of the six research participants in my study had knowledge of at least one other

language beside English: All of them had learned French at some point before they started the

undergraduate studies at the University of Waterloo. Two of them had also learned Spanish as

well. German was the second or third foreign language for them.64

Therefore, after exploring

the representation of meaning from the perspectives of the monolingual mental lexicon, I think

it is essential to look at the organization of meaning in the bilingual mental lexicon, and ask

two questions. First, do bilinguals represent their languages in separate or common memory

systems? In other words, how many lexicons does a bilingual speaker possess? Second, is there

a separate and independent system for each language, or just one common system? These

questions have been investigated for more than half a century (since Weinreich, 195365

).

Various theories/models have been proposed including separate storage model, common

storage model, and distributed model. In the following, I will briefly describe each of these

models.66

The “separate storage model” (or independent storage model; Grosjean, 1982) holds

that each language of a bilingual has its own system, and that each system is independent

64

Some of the participants therefore can be regarded as multilinguals, not just bilinguals. In bilingualism research,

the term bilingual is also used to refer to the individuals with two or more languages. Hence, I will follow

convention and use the term “bilingual” here as well. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that some researchers

have called for the term “multilingual” to refer to an individual with two or more than two languages. (e.g., Cenoz,

Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2003).

Also, I do not intend to discuss the issue of whether it is appropriate to regard the participants in my study as

bilingual or multilingual, because there has not been a consensus of what an “ideal” bilingual or multilingual is

with regard to the degree of language proficiency. Refer to Romaine (1995, Chapter One) for more discussions on

this issue. 65

According to Meara (1982, p. 14), “Weinreich (1953) is attributed as the first major researcher to classify

bilinguals as having lexical entries which were either compound (one concept with two words) or coordinate (two

concepts and two words). 66

For a detailed review of the research on this topic, refer to Albert and Obler (1979), McCormack (1977), Meara

(1982), and Singleton (1999).

93

(separate). Hence, each system has its own separate sets of phonemes, rules, and words. Also,

because the systems are independent from each other, information processing in one language

does not automatically affect processing in the other language. The “common storage model”

(Green, 1986; Jessner, 1996; Kirsner et al., 1984) suggests that there is no separate storage for

each language. Elements of the second language are simply stored with those of the first

language. The “distributed model” (De Groot, 1993, 1995; De Groot & Nas, 1991; Jin, 1990)

proposes neither a single nor a separate representational system, but rather a “mixed”

representational system, “where concrete words and words perceived as cognates across the

two languages are stored in a „compound‟ manner, whereas abstract words and non-cognates in

the respective languages are stored in a „co-ordinate‟ manner,” describes Singleton (1999, p.

172). That is, concrete words and cognates have relatively shared storage, whereas abstract and

non-cognates have relatively separate storage. In other words, word type plays an important

role in this model.

Singleton (1999) reviews a wide spectrum of research investigating the models. Each of

the models has received support as well as criticism regarding the methodologies used in the

studies. Singleton (1999) concludes that:

It appears from the evidence reviewed that L1 and L2 lexis are separately stored, but

that the two systems are in communication with each other – whether via direct

connections between individual L1 and L2 lexical nodes, or via a common conceptual

store (or both). It also seems likely, on the basis of the current state of research, that the

relationship between a given L2 word and a given L1 word in the mental lexicon will

vary from individual to individual, depending on how the words have been acquired

and how well they are known, and also on the degree to which formal and/or semantic

94

similarity is perceived between the L2 word and the L1 word in questions. (ibid., pp.

189-190)

4.3 Implications for Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning

In the previous sections, I have presented various theories/models from memory and

mental lexicon research in psychology. In the final section of this chapter, I focus on their

probable implications for learning vocabulary in a foreign language and for my study. The

discussion will focus on the following points:

the role of attention/noticing in vocabulary learning

rehearsal and distributed practice

elaboration and vocabulary learning strategies

4.3.1 The Role of Attention/Noticing in Foreign Vocabulary Learning

Research findings in psychology indicate that paying attention/noticing is the basic

condition for information to be remembered. This view has been supported by researchers in

the field of foreign vocabulary learning and SLA. For instance, Nation (2001) views “noticing”

as one of the general processes which encourage learning and lead to a word being

remembered: “[L]earners need to notice the word, and be aware of it as a useful language item”

(p. 63). Schmitt (1995) reviews a series of studies and concludes that “[n]ot all learning is

deliberate or intentional (for example, it is clearly possible to learn vocabulary through

extensive reading, without a clear intention to learn new words), but all learning does require

attention (if readers do not pay attention to new words when they encounter them, they will not

learn them)” (p. 1).

95

Nation (2001) also indicates that noticing could occur when learners are reading or

listening. They could notice that a word is new, and then look it up in a dictionary, guess from

context, or have a word explained to them. Noticing could also occur when learners are

deliberately studying words. For instance, they could notice that although some foreign words

sound similar to their L1 equivalents, they are spelled differently (e.g., Schuh in German and

shoe in English; or Bier and beer), and employ a certain strategy (or strategies) on the basis of

this „discovery‟ to remember the word. In sum, noticing plays a role in learners‟ use of

vocabulary learning strategies. Hence, in my study, I will pay attention to what the participants

notice when they are studying words as well as what they do not notice.

Also, as shown previously, features of stimuli (such as the size, intensity, novelty,

oddity, motion, personal significance … and so on) may affect our attention to them. For

vocabulary learning, it means that the salience of words in the textual input may play an

important role in whether a word will be noticed or not (Nation, 2001). Bearing this point in

mind, when I introduce the textbook Vorsprung and analyze it in Chapter Five of this thesis, I

will attend to how words are presented in the textbook.

4.3.2 Rehearsal (Repetition) and Distributed Practice

In memory research, multi-store memory theorists believe that maintenance rehearsal is

efficient enough for keeping information in working memory as well as in long-term memory,

while the levels of processing approach proposes elaborative rehearsal (see Chapter 4.1.5.2).

Nevertheless, study findings further show both types of rehearsal will be effective only if

rehearsal is distributed, not crammed into a very short period of time, usually the day before

96

the exams for many students. The general principle behind the distributed practice is that “the

older a piece of learning is, the slower the forgetting” (Nation, 2001, p. 77).

This finding has also been strongly supported by researchers in foreign language

vocabulary learning (e.g., Bahrick, 1984; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Bloom & Shell, 1981;

Dempster, 1987). However, the key question is: do language learners know about this valuable

and useful information? Do they know they should repeat the learning material immediately

after initial learning and then at gradually increasing intervals, for instance, five to ten minutes

after learning, then 24 hours later, a week later, a month later and finally 6 month later (Takač,

2008)? This question is also of interest to my study. Hence, in the interviews, I will specifically

ask my participants about how often they repeat the learning material (if they use the repetition

as a strategy for memorization), and whether they schedule the repetition at all.

4.3.3 Elaboration and Vocabulary Learning Strategies

In the memory research literature, it is generally agreed that elaboration – connecting

the to-be-remembered information to prior knowledge in memory – results in longer memory

retention. Also, it is essential that the connections are meaningful. It is important to bear in

mind that, generally, human memory research on elaboration focuses on information seen in

our everyday life, such as numbers, names, or items in a room. Also, the stimuli used in the

empirical studies are usually presented in the participants‟ native language.67

In other words,

human memory research does not focus on language learners and how they deal with words in

foreign languages. Thus, it is important to consider and investigate whether the memory

67

Furthermore, it is not uncommon that the empirical studies were carried out on medical patients who were

traumatized or physically injured, and had thus lost their memory (amnesia).

97

theories can also be applied to foreign vocabulary learning, and how foreign language learners

use elaboration to remember words they have encountered.

Further, the term elaboration is very broadly defined and used in psychology. I believe

it is necessary to illustrate more concretely what this term refers to in vocabulary learning, i.e.,

what (kind of) vocabulary learning strategies involve elaboration? To do so, I first look into

various classifications of language learning strategies and of vocabulary learning strategies in

which this term has been used or defined.

O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) classified elaboration under cognitive strategies which

involve “interacting with the material to be learned, manipulating the material mentally or

physically, or applying a specific technique to a learning task” (p. 138). They defined

elaboration as follows: “relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of

new information to each other, or making meaningful personal associations with the new

information” (p. 138). From their think-aloud data, eight different types of elaboration were

identified (p. 138):

1. Personal elaboration: making judgments about or reacting personally to the material

presented.

2. World elaboration: using knowledge gained from experience in the world.

3. Academic elaboration: using knowledge gained in academic situations.

4. Between parts elaboration: relating parts of the task to each other.

5. Questioning elaboration: using a combination of questions and world knowledge to

brainstorm logical solutions to a task.

6. Self-evaluative elaboration: judging self in relation to materials.

7. Creative elaboration: making up a story line, or adopting a clever perspective.

98

8. Imagery: using mental or actual pictures or visuals to represent information.68

In Oxford (1990), the term elaboration was synonymous with “association” and was

viewed as a way of creating mental linkages which is classified as a memory strategy, not

cognitive strategy (refer to footnote 21 in Chapter Three for Oxford‟s definitions of memory

strategy and cognitive strategy). Table 4.2 below shows the categorization of memory

strategies.

Table 4.2. Memory strategies in Oxford (1990). Source: Oxford (1990, p. 39).

Memory

strategies

A. Creating mental

linkages

1. Grouping

2. Associating/Elaborating

3. Placing new words into a context

B. Applying images

and sounds

1. Using imagery

2. Semantic mapping

3. Using keywords

4. Representing sounds in memory

C. Reviewing well 1. Structured reviewing

D. Employing action 1. Using physical response or sensation

2. Using mechanical techniques

Oxford defined association/elaboration as “relating new language information to

concepts already in memory, or relating one piece of information to another, to create

associations in memory” (ibid., p. 41). Associations can be made between two items, such as

“bread and butter,” or between multiple parts, such as “school-book-paper-tree-country-earth.”

The bottom line is that these associations “must be meaningful to the learner” (ibid., p. 41).

68

O‟Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 138) point out that imagery is sometimes classified as a separate category, but is

viewed as a form of elaboration.

99

However, Oxford also points out that the strategies “placing new words into a context,”69

“using imagery,”70

“semantic mapping,”71

“using keywords,” and “representing sounds in

memory”72

all involve association/elaboration, too.73

In Schmitt‟s (1997) taxonomy no group of strategies was directly labelled as

elaboration. Nevertheless, he indicated that most (i.e., not all) of the memory strategies in his

taxonomy involve “relating the word to be retained with some previously learned knowledge,

[it is] the kind of elaborative mental processing” (pp. 211-212; Table 4.3 below demonstrates

all the memory strategies from his taxonomy). His words imply that most memory strategies in

his taxonomy can be viewed as elaboration. However, his words are also ambiguous: Schmitt

did not concretely point out which memory strategies do not involve elaboration. Hence, it is

left for the reader to judge which strategy involves elaboration and which does not.

Nonetheless, it is not always easy to do so. It is not difficult to classify certain strategies as

elaboration because they are well-known mnemonics involving elaboration such as the key

word method, peg method, and loci method (see sections 4.1.5.3 and 4.1.5.4). But some other

strategies are difficult to judge. For instance, can “configuration” be regarded as elaboration?

69

“Placing a word or phrase in a meaningful sentence, conversation, or story in order to remember it” (Oxford,

1990, p. 41). 70

“Relating new language information to concepts in memory by means of meaningful visual imagery, either in

the mind or in an actual drawing” (ibid., p. 41). 71

“Making an arrangement of words into a picture, which has a key concept at the center or at the top, and related

words and concepts linked with the key concept by means of lines or arrows” (ibid., p. 41). 72

“Remembering new language information according to its sound. This is a broad strategy that can use any

number of techniques, all of which create a meaningful, sound-based association between the new material and

already known material” (ibid., p. 42). 73

In my opinion, Oxford‟s classification of memory strategies is rather confusing. First, there is an overlap

between “creating mental linkages” and “applying images and sounds.” The latter is also to a certain extent a way

of creating mental linkages. Secondly, based on her definitions of elaboration, I think it would be more

comprehensible if the five strategies – “placing new words into a context,” “using imagery,” “semantic mapping,”

“using keywords,” and “representing sounds in memory” were categorized simply under “elaboration,” not under

“creating mental linkages” and “applying images and sounds.”

100

Table 4.3. Memory strategies in Schmitt‟s (1997) vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy

Memory

strategies

Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning

Imagine word‟s meaning

Connect word to a personal experience

Associate the word with its coordinates

Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms

Use semantic maps

Use scales for gradable adjectives

Peg Method

Loci Method

Group words together to study them

Group words together spatially on a page

Use new word in sentences

Group words together within a storyline

Study the spelling of a word

Study the sound of a word

Say new word aloud when studying

Imagine word form

Underline initial letter of the word

Configuration

Use Keyword Method

Affix and root (remembering)

Part of speech (remembering)

Paraphrase the word‟s meaning

Use cognates in study

Learn the words of an idiom together

Use physical action when learning a word

Use semantic feature grids

To summarize, all of the three studies basically agree on the definition of elaboration:

relating new information to prior knowledge in memory. O‟Malley and Chamot (1990)

identified numerous types of elaboration from empirical studies of language learning strategies,

while Schmitt (1997), by reviewing research literature, presented a list of vocabulary memory

strategies which contain many elaboration strategies (although it is not clear which strategies

do not involve elaboration). However, none of the studies specifically look into the process of

elaboration during vocabulary study and/or its effectiveness for vocabulary learning. How do

students connect new information to prior knowledge to remember words? How are

101

elaboration strategies carried out? Is elaboration helpful for learning vocabulary in a foreign

language? My study aims to answer these questions. In the next chapter, I will provide a

detailed account of the context and the methodology of my empirical multiple case study.

102

Chapter Five: The Study – Context and Methodology

My study aims to gain insight into adult learners‟ vocabulary learning processes by

looking at their use of vocabulary learning strategies. The objective of the study is to

investigate the following key questions:

1. What vocabulary learning strategies do the individual learners report they usually use to

find out the meaning of unknown words and to consolidate the spelling and meaning of the

words they have encountered?

2. What vocabulary learning strategies do the individual learners actually use to find out the

meaning of unknown words and to consolidate the words in the vocabulary study activities?

3. How do the individual learners apply the vocabulary learning strategies for the purposes

mentioned above?

4. What are the differences between the individual learners‟ use of vocabulary learning

strategies?

In order to do so, I conducted a qualitative multiple-case study in a context of a German

language course for beginners (German 101 Elememtary German I; henceforth, I will cite it as

GER 101) in the fall term of 2006 (September-December, 2006) at the University of Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada. Full ethics clearance for this research was received (ORE # 12842).

This chapter deals with all the issues involved in the research design of this study. It

aims to describe in detail how the data were collected and analyzed. For a better understanding

of the research context, I will begin with a brief introduction of the German language course

(5.1). Next, I will describe the usage and presentation of vocabulary in the first three chapters

of the textbook Vorsprung (5.2), following this by a description of the data collection

103

procedure (5.3) and of the materials designed for the study (5.4). The last part of the chapter is

devoted to the data analysis (5.5).

5.1 The Language Course

As previously mentioned, the research was carried out in a GER 101 course (section

three) provided by the Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies at the University of

Waterloo during the fall semester of 2006. GER 101 is designed for beginners only74

and had

seven sections in total in that semester. Section three had 24 students and was taught by an

instructor who is a German native speaker. The textbook used for all the German language

courses was Vorsprung (Lovik et al., 2002). Only chapters 1 to 3 are taught in GER 101.

Students meet four times a week (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for the

students in section three) for 12 weeks, and each time for 50 minutes. Of the four times, three

meetings take place in a regular classroom, and one (Thursday) in the language laboratory.

According to the course syllabus, the main goal of this beginner‟s course is to “equip students

with a basic ability in German,” i.e., students

learn to comprehend and speak German with a good degree of accuracy,

learn to read and understand the main content of simple German texts, and

learn to write basic German.75

In other words, all four skills – listening, speaking, reading and writing – are covered. The

syllabus also stresses “a style of language learning in which communication plays a key role,”

i.e., the course is designed to help the students to develop the ability to communicate in

74

In the course syllabus, it is indicated that “GER 101 is not open to students with Ontario High School Grade 12

German, OAC, or equivalent.” 75

Information source: German 101 course outline. Available on the Germanic and Slavic Studies departmental

website: http://germanicandslavic.uwaterloo.ca/courses/german_courses.html

104

German; teaching grammar and language structures is not the primary or only focus of this

course.

The language laboratory contains 24 multi-media computers with audio equipment (e.g.,

headsets). Here, the instructor assigns students different audio, video, or multi-media exercises

that are to be accomplished during the laboratory time.

In order to assess students‟ progress, during the semester, at regular intervals, students

are required to write four quizzes in the classroom, four tasks in the laboratory, and a midterm

exam (which takes place approximately in the 8th

week of the semester). Towards the end of

the term, there is also a test which mainly assesses students‟ ability to comprehend spoken

German; a speaking test which is a combination of a skit usually involving two students and a

spontaneous question-answer session; and finally, a 2.5-hour written final exam that tests their

abilities to understand and to use structures and vocabulary acquired during the semester.

5.2 The Textbook Vorsprung

In the present section, I will describe the language textbook Vorsprung (Lovik, Guy, &

Chaves, 2002, 2nd edition, Instructor‟s Annotated Edition; henceforth, I will cite it as

Vorsprung) with a focus on vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies.76

I will first

introduce the structure of the textbook. Then, I will explore how the vocabulary is introduced

to learners and look at whether any suggestions or guidance for vocabulary learning strategies

76

Accompanying the text are a Workbook/Lab Manual, an Audio program, the Unterwegs video, and Computer

Study Modules. The audio program and the Unterwegs video are to be found on UW language lab website and in

the computers in the language laboratories. Students can either go on the language laboratory website or go to the

language laboratory to use these multi-media materials. To limit the scope of my analysis, I will focus only on the

textbook itself. Also, because GER 101 only covers Chapters One to Three of Vorsprung, I will examine mainly

these three chapters.

105

are provided to the students to learn the vocabulary. I will also examine whether there are any

exercises designed specifically for developing vocabulary learning strategies.

According to the description of “Teaching German with Vorsprung” in the textbook

preface, Vorsprung is

a complete first-year program designed for beginning students of German. It offers a

communicative introduction to the German language and culture and provides

beginning German students with the necessary skills for successful communication in

today‟s rapidly changing world by exposing them to a wealth of spoken and written

authentic textual materials. (Lovik et al., 2002, p. xi)

The book contains 12 chapters, “each focusing on a different aspect of German culture” (ibid.).

Each chapter begins with a photo, which serves as a preview of the cultural theme of the

chapter. All chapters (except Chapter One and Eleven) are divided into three major sections: 1)

Anlauftext (warm-up text) − a text illustrated in comics and recorded on the audio program. It

presents a storyboard that runs throughout the book and tells the story of Anna Adler, an

American student who is going to study at the University of Tübingen, Germany, for a year

and meet her German relatives living in Weinheim, Germany. 2) Absprungtext (take-off text) −

an authentic written text such as advertisements, brochures, letters, short stories, etc. 3) Zieltext

(target text) − an authentic listening text recorded on the audio program. It incorporates “the

structures and vocabulary of the chapter in a free flowing dialogue” (Vorsprung, p. xiii). Most

of the activities in the chapters are closely related to these texts. Table 5.1 below provides an

overview of the organization of the chapters.

106

Table 5.1. Basic organization of the chapters in Vorsprung.

Opening photograph

Anlauftext

section

Vorschau

(Preview activities)

Thematische Fragen

(Thematic questions)

Wortdetektiv

(Word-detective)

Anlauftext

Rückblick

(Follow-up activities)

Stimmt das?

(True or false?)

Ergänzen Sie.

(Fill-ins)

Kurz gefragt.

(Short-answer questions)

Strukturen und Vokabeln (Structure and vocabulary)

Absprungtext

section

Vorschau


Thematische Fragen


Wortdetektiv

(Word-detective)

Absprungtext

Rückblick


Stimmt das?

(True or false?)

Ergänzen Sie.

(Fill-ins)

Kurz gefragt.


Strukturen und Vokabeln (Structure and vocabulary)

Zieltext

section

Vorschau


Thematische Fragen


Wortdetektiv

(Word-detective)

Zieltext

Rückblick


Stimmt das?

(True or false?)

Ergänzen Sie.

(Fill-ins)

Kurz gefragt.


Wortschatz (Vocabulary List)

Most of the three major sections begin with the Vorschau (preview activities) which

include activities like thematische Fragen (thematic questions) and Wortdetektiv (Word-

detective). The thematische Fragen (thematic questions) activity aims to help students

107

“activate prior knowledge of themes, vocabulary, and structures before listening to the

Anlauftext.” The Wortdetektiv (Word-detective)77

is a word matching activity which tries to

“help students focus on synonyms and build their active vocabulary base” (Lovik et al., 2002, p.

xi). On the left hand side, several German words selected from the major texts (i.e., Anlauftext,

Absprungtext, or Zieltext) are listed, while the possible English equivalents are seen on the

right hand side. Students are asked to draw a line from the German word to its logical English

equivalent (see Figure 5.1 below).

Figure 5.1. The Wortdetektiv activity in Chapter Three (Souce: Lovik et al., 2002, p. 80)

Deutsch

1. verstehen

2. das Gepäck

3. mit·bringen

4. essen

5. wandern

Englisch

a. to eat

b. to bring along

c. to understand

d. luggage

e. to hike

___________________________

6. trinken

7. bleiben

8. der Bahnhof

9. das Schweinefleisch

10. tragen

f. pork

g. to wear

h. to stay

i. to drink

j. train station

After these warm-up activities, the texts are introduced. Vocabulary that has been

briefly encountered in the warm-up activities will be seen and heard again, but now they are

presented within a context, not in isolation as in the Wortdetektiv activity. Usually, the

instructor presents the texts to the students more than once. Taking the Anlauftext in Chapter

Three as an example: First, the students listen to the text in audio recording only, without the

book. Then, the students can read the text while listening to the recording again. Finally, the

instructor models the sentences of the text and explains the content to the students.

77

Beginning with Chapter Four, Wortdetektiv is replaced by Satzdetektiv (Sentence detective activity) Strukturen

und Vokabeln do not appear in the division of Zieltext, only in that of Anlauftext and Absprungtext.

108

After the texts are presented, students move on to the section of Rückblick (follow-up

exercises) containing various activities that guide students “from initial comprehension of the

text to personalization of the topics in the text” (ibid., p. xii). For example, the Stimmt das?

(True or false?) activity “provides a quick check of the content to determine how much of the

text students understood”; the Ergänzen Sie (Fill-ins) activity requires students to focus on

vocabulary in the context of the text; the Kurz gefragt (Short-answer questions) activity

“guides students to produce more complete statements about the text” (Lovik et al., 2002, p.

xii).

The Rückblick section is usually followed by Strukturen und Vokabeln (Structures and

Vocabulary).78

As the name suggests, this section focuses on grammar structures and

vocabulary. Grammar structures are explained in English. As for vocabulary, it is presented in

the parts called Wissenswerte Vokabeln (vocabulary worth knowing) where “[g]roups of

thematically related words and phrases are presented in richly illustrated format” (ibid., p. xii).

By “richly illustrated format,” the authors mean that words are illustrated with images such as

pictures or drawings (see, for instance, Figure 5.2 below: the vocabulary of food).79

78

Strukturen und Vokabeln do not appear in the Zieltext section, only in that of Anlauftext and Absprungtext. 79

The original picture in the textbook is in color.

109

Figure 5.2. Wissenswerte Vokabeln: Lebensmittel (food). (Lovik et al., 2002, p. 95)

Presenting words in semantic groups is intended to facilitate learning. As described

previously, according to the spreading activation theory by Collins and Loftus (1975), each

concept is connected with the others based on semantic relatedness (see 4.2.1.3). Sometimes,

there is a annotation for the instructor on how to demonstrate the vocabulary to the learners.

For instance, beside the picture of Lebensmittel (Figure 5.2 above), the following short note is

given to the instructor: “Model the pronunciation of each food item while pointing to the

matching picture. Ask Ss [students] for ingredients of dishes: Was ist in Cappuccino? In

Spaghetti? Auf Pizza?” (Vorsprung, p. 95)

Nonetheless, I want to point out that, in general, vocabulary in Wissenswerte Vokabeln

is introduced mainly to practice the grammar structures. Take the vocabulary of food in Figure

5.2 above again as an example: it is introduced to practice the use of the modal verb möchten

110

(would like to), the structure Verb+gern (to like to…), or the structure Verb+lieber (rather),

such as:

Möchtest du lieber Cola oder Kaffee (trinken)?

(What do you prefer (to drink), coke or coffee?)

Ich möchte lieber Kaffee (trinken), und du?

(I prefer (to drink) coffee, and you?)

Was isst du gern? Ich esse gern Salat.

(What do you like to eat? I like to eat salad.)

In other words, grammar is the major concern and focus, not vocabulary. In my opinion,

when vocabulary is introduced in this way in the textbook, it could make instructors focus

mainly on grammar when planning a syllabus for teaching, and make learners believe

vocabulary is less important and ignore the significant role of vocabulary in language learning.

Each chapter ends with Wortschatz, a vocabulary list that presents German-English

word pairs. It includes all active words and expressions taught in the chapter. According to the

textbook preface, Wortschatz is organized by semantic fields (e.g., Das Essen [the food],

Freizeitaktivitäten [free time activities] in Chapter Three). However, based on my examination,

Wortschatz is not always organized by semantic fields. For instance, in both chapters Two and

Three, words are also categorized by parts of speech (i.e., Verben [verbs], Adjektive und

Adverbien [adjectives and adverbs]) and by the source of the words (i.e., Aus dem Zieltext).

There is also a category called Andere Wörter (other words) where words such as auch, dein(e),

ein … etc. are listed. The category Ausdrücke (expressions) also appears several times on the

list. From my point of view, the organization of the list is fairly confusing and makes it

difficult to use it as a reference material.

111

At the end of the textbook, there are two long vocabulary lists as well. One is from

German to English, the other from English to German. The German-English Vocabulary

compiles all the vocabulary used in Vorsprung, while the English-German one focuses on high

frequency words from the core texts and the Wissenswerte Vokabeln.

In regard to vocabulary learning strategies, I examine whether there are activities

created for students to practice vocabulary learning strategies in the textbook. I notice that from

Chapter One to Three, two strategies are mentioned to the students: (1) acting out the words, (2)

guessing through sound and spelling similarities.

In Chapter One, there are a couple of Total Physical Response activities with which

students learn to understand commands and requests (the imperative) by carrying them out,

such as:

Stehen Sie auf. (Stand up.)

Setzen Sie sich. (Sit down.)

Drehen Sie sich um. (Turn around.)

Also in Chapter One, the textbook has started to encourage students to use their

intuition to decipher new German words in Chapter One: “Intuition can be useful when it

comes to deciphering new German words. […] Look for words that may be similar to English”

(Lovik et al., 2002, p. 3). Later in Chapter Three, next to the Wortdetektiv activity (on p. 80,

see Figure 5.1 above), there is a brief note that guides students to guess the meaning of the

German words through cognates:

To guess the meaning of the German words, look for similarities with English

(cognates), determine which English and German words belong to the same categories

(nouns, verbs, adjectives), and use a process of elimination. (Lovik et al., 2002, p. 80)

112

On the same page, a definition of the term cognate is provided: “A cognate is a word

that has a similar form in two different languages, like the German Haus and the English

house” (ibid., p. 80).80

The term explanation is followed by an activity called Kognate

entdecken (Discover cognates). This activity asks the students to scan the statements in the

Anlauftext and find six cognates in the text and circle them. It also suggests the instructor

should “write the words on the overhead as students call them out and model their

pronunciation” (ibid, p. 80).81

In addition to these activities, vocabulary learning strategies are also briefly mentioned

and described in the textbook preface section. In “To the Student,” there is a short passage

encouraging students to “[d]evelop a vocabulary learning strategy”:

When learning new vocabulary, practice writing new words on note cards or identifying

objects in your environment with stick-on tags. You may also find it helpful to record

new vocabulary onto a cassette and play it back to yourself. Try to organize words into

small manageable groups organized thematically, by gender, or by ranking, for example.

Continually test your knowledge of these new words. Avoid memorizing lists of words.

Learn to associate new words with the visual or linguistic context provided in

Vorsprung. (ibid., p. xviii)

Within this short paragraph, various vocabulary learning strategies are mentioned, such

as “practice writing new words on note cards,” “identify objects with stick-on tags,” “record

new vocabulary onto a cassette and play it back to yourself,” and “group words.” However, the

80

However, I also notice that the textbook does not mention the notion of false cognates (false friends, e.g., Handy

in German vs. handy in English). Using intuition to decipher false cognates usually leads to erroneous use of the

words. 81

In the actual teaching in the classroom, the Kognate entdecken activity was skipped and not carried out. The

instructor did not draw students‟ attention to the notion of cognates, either. However, the instructor did the

Wortdetektiv activity with the students. He said the words in English and asked the students to say the equivalents

in German. He listened to the students‟ pronunciation and demonstrated the pronunciation of each German word

to the class.

113

key questions are: Is it sufficient just to mention them briefly in the book, especially in the

preface of the textbook which students often tend to ignore? Do the students receive the

message that developing their vocabulary learning strategy inventory is important?

Additionally, there is advice for using dictionaries in the preface as well:

Learn to use a dictionary, but don‟t let your dictionary become a substitute for effective

reading strategies. This can undermine your own ability to associate meaning with new

words and may inhibit your acquisition of German. (ibid., p. xviii)

This paragraph first encourages the students to learn to use a dictionary. However, it does not

mention how they should learn this strategy, what they need to pay attention to or be cautious

about when they use a dictionary.

To summarize, in the major texts, vocabulary is usually presented contextually within

the storyboard. In the sections of Wissenswerte Vokabeln, vocabulary is grouped thematically

with picture illustration, and introduced mainly for the purposes of grammatical drill. Further,

there is very little information about vocabulary learning strategies. There are very few

activities integrated for developing vocabulary learning strategies. This makes the students and

the instructor focus much more on grammar structures, and leaves them to deal with the

vocabulary learning and teaching on their own.

5.3 Data Collection Methodology

I began to collect the empirical data for the research in September 2006. The study was

designed to elicit both retrospective and introspective data on the uses of vocabulary learning

strategies in language learning activities. In order to enhance the validity and reliability of the

data collected, the “triangulation” technique was used, that is, using “multiple data-gathering

114

procedures” (Brown & Rodgers, 2002, p. 244). As Brown and Rodgers point out: “If you can

examine your data from at least two points of view, you will maximize the possibility of

getting credible findings by cross-validating those findings” (p. 244). Chapelle and Duff (2003)

also indicate that this technique “adds texture, depth, and multiple insights to an analysis” (p.

165).

The data for the research derived primarily from the following sources:

Questionnaires

Semi-structured interviews

Think-aloud protocols

In addition to the sources listed above, the participants‟ performance in the classroom were

observed throughout the whole semester. The purpose of observation was to get to know the

research participants better as well as to understand the development of the course more fully.

Also, I had their consent to collect their course notes and course material (for example,

handouts from the instructor). In the following sections, I will describe step by step how the

data were collected and the design of the three primary instruments.

Step 1: Introducing the project to the class

The first step in data collection was to go to the German language class (GER 101) to

introduce myself and my research project. As requested by the Office of Research at the

University of Waterloo, the first time I attended the class, I handed out information letters

about my research and encouraged the whole group to take part in my research. I also pointed

out clearly to the group that their participation or refusal to participate in the research would

not affect their term grades, and all the information they provided would remain confidential.

115

The instructor also informed the group that I would be observing the class throughout the

semester, so that the students would be prepared for my presence and accustom themselves to

it.

Step 2: Administering Questionnaire 1

The second time I attended the class, I brought participation consent forms for

interested students to sign. The first questionnaires (see Appendix A) were then given to those

students to fill out. The purposes of administering the first questionnaires were to gather basic

learner profiles of the whole group in an efficient way and then to select a small number of

research participants. As Lindlof and Taylor (2002) point out, questionnaires can be “a

valuable exploratory method,” as they can “offer a comprehensive look at an entire social unit”

(p. 119).

The questionnaires consisted of three parts. The first part of the questionnaire contained

questions regarding the learners‟ demographic information (i.e., age, gender), and their contact

information. The second part focused on their language background, such as their native

language, and languages learned in and outside of a classroom setting. Through these questions,

I intended to find out whether they had already had experiences in learning a second/foreign

language before and for how long. If they had, I would ask them (in the later interview) to

describe the experiences. For instance, how was the language taught? Did they enjoy the

course? Did the instructor teach them any language learning strategies? The questions in the

third part of the questionnaire concerned the language learning in general, for example, why

they were taking GER 101, how they evaluated themselves as language learners, whether they

preferred to learn alone or in a group, whether they took notes while learning, whether they

116

used a computer program to facilitate learning and so on. Sufficient time (less than a week)

was given to the interested students to fill out the questionnaire.

At the end of the week, 16 students in total filled out the questionnaires and handed

them back to me. They were eight male and eight female students with ages between 18 to 23.

Twelve of them were English native speakers (i.e., 75%); most of them were born and grew up

in Canada, and had learned French in elementary and/or high schools. Two of them had learned

German before. They took the German course mostly because they needed to fulfill the

language requirement for their programs, but also because they were interested in the German

language and its associated culture(s).

Step 3: Selecting Research Participants

After the questionnaires were collected, I evaluated the answers for the next step of the

data collection procedure: selecting participants for this study. Out of the 16 students, 10 were

selected and contacted for further interviews. These 10 students were selected based on the

following criteria:82

(1) They should have no experience learning German. Hence, the two students who had

learned German before were excluded because the target group for this study was limited

to German beginners. Although these two students could stay in the GER 101 course and

were regarded as “beginners,” based on course observation, one of them had much more

knowledge in German than anyone else in the group; thus, I did not see her as a beginner.

82

Typicality (or representativeness) is not the primary focus of this study. Case studies have been criticized

because the samples do not represent the population from which the samples were drawn, and hence the study

results cannot be generalized. However, as Lindlof and Taylor (2002) point out, generalizability should not be

considered a problem, because: “(1) Qualitative studies do not produce data that can be subjected to statistical

procedures that allow generalization to a population; and (2) qualitative studies focus on the social practices and

meaning of people in a specific historical or cultural context. […] Because social phenomena are studied for their

unique qualities, the question of whether they are normally distributed in a population is not an issue” (p. 122).

117

The other student was excluded not only because he was not a beginner, but also because

he had rarely appeared in class and I had very little access to him (see criterion 4 below).

(2) Their interesting and/or unique answers to the questionnaires gave me a good reason to

believe that, using Schwandt‟s words (1997), “what goes on there [i.e., the case] is critical

to understanding some process or concept, or to testing or elaborating some established

theory” (p. 128; also cited in Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 122). The interesting and/or

unique answers may be relevant to their previous learning experience, their thoughts on

language learning, their learning habits, and their family background. For example, one

student mentioned that he was home-schooled for five years, while the other reported that

his family had a German background.

(3) I also included those students whose first language is not English, for instance, students

from other countries such as China or India, because I assumed that they could provide a

different insight on how German vocabulary is learned.

(4) Their performance in class played a crucial role as well. According to my course

observation, most of the 10 students came to the class regularly, which indicated a

willingness to learn German. Also, I believed if I saw them more in class, I could gain

access to them more easily and had more opportunities to observe them and to get to know

them.

(5) The last criterion was accessibility. I considered this an important criterion also because it

is important for the researcher to meet with the participants. Although some students

signed the consent forms for participation at the beginning of the research, some of them

were not really interested in taking part in the study. I concluded this from their behavior

and responses to my requests. For instance, when I asked them for an appointment for an

118

interview, they either said they were very busy and could not find a time for it; or they did

not often come to class and were difficult to reach.

Based on these criteria, I selected ten students and contacted them for further research.

However, only six of them responded positively to my request and stayed until the study was

completed. The six participants, two female (Anna and Sarah) and four male students (Kevin,

Kenny, Erik, Ian)83

became the participants of my research. Five of them (except Ian) were

enrolled officially for the course, and the other one was auditing. Their ages ranged from 18 to

22. What they had in common were:

All of them spoke English fluently; they were either English native speakers or near native

speakers.

They all had some experience in learning foreign language(s) before, for example, French or

Spanish.

None of them had learned German before.

A detailed description of their personal backgrounds will be presented in Chapter Six.

Step 4: Interviews, Round 1

Immediately after the list of participants was finalized, I met the participants for further

in-depth-interviews. Interviews are a commonly-used instrument in case studies. There were

several reasons why I chose interviews as an instrument for my research. First and foremost

because the “interviewing provides access to the context of people‟s behavior and thereby

provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behavior” (Seidman, 2006, p.

83

In compliance with university ethical guidelines, each of the participants is given a pseudonym.

119

10), in other words, “interviewing allows us [researchers] to put behavior in context and

provides access to understanding their action” (ibid., p. 10).

Second, interviewing could be used as a complementary tool to questionnaires and to

observation. Using questionnaires is an efficient and convenient method to gather information.

However, it is deficient in supplying much detail about the participants‟ individuality, their

personalities, personal learning experiences, and their valuable thoughts. Interviewing could

make the information more complete. As Seidman (2006) points out,

[a] researcher can approach the experience of people in contemporary organizations

through examining personal and institutional documents, through observation, through

exploring history, through experimentation, through questionnaires and surveys, and

through a review of existing literature. If the researcher‟s goal, however, is to

understand the meaning of people involved in education make of their experience, then

interviewing provides a necessary, if not always completely sufficient, avenue of

inquiry. (pp. 10-11)

The third reason for interviewing was to confirm, and validate the information obtained

from other sources, such as questionnaires or observation. It is a technique known as “member

validation” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) or “member checking” (Brown & Rodgers, 2002).84

It is

not unusual that informants misread or misinterpret the questions, and thus provide answers

that are misleading or irrelevant. It is also possible that the researchers misinterpret or cannot

understand very well the words or terms used by the participants in the questionnaires. Member

validation can be carried out at many points during the process of data collection; it does not

84

This technique is also known as “member tests of validity” (Douglas, 1976), and “host verification” (Schatzman

& Stauss, 1973).

120

necessarily occur only in interviews. However, when needed, I find it most efficient to carry it

out in the prearranged interviews.

Interview context (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 185), for instance the location selected

for interviews to occur, is an important issue. Bearing in mind the confidentiality and the

technical devices needed for recording, I chose the audio recording studio in the Modern

Language building at the University of Waterloo to conduct the interviews. It was equipped

with a host computer, a recorder, and a microphone. The studio was soundproof, and I

interviewed each of the participants individually so that they did not need to worry about the

presence of others and could feel comfortable in speaking freely.85

The interviews in this research were semi-structured interviews which lie somewhere

between the structured and unstructured interviews. A semi-structured interview

involves the implementation of a number of predetermined questions and special topics.

These questions are typically asked of each interviewee in a systematic and consistent

order, but the interviewers are allowed freedom to digress; that is, the interviewers are

permitted (in fact, expected) to probe far beyond the answers to their prepared

standardized questions. (Berg, 2007, p. 95)

Hence, before coming to the interviews, I prepared a list of guideline questions for each

of the individual participants. Nevertheless, this guideline did not prevent me from being

flexible and adding other questions that were not included on the list, nor did it stop me from

reordering the questions during the interviews. This approach has the advantage that it helps

the interviewer, especially a novice interviewer like me, to come to the interviews well

prepared. Also, it makes the interviewer pay careful attention to the words of the participants in

85

However, the first interview with Anna and Erik were not audio recorded as I was not able to use the studio.

Hence, I took notes during the interviews and checked the notes with them before the end of the interview.

121

order to add necessary questions or exclude inappropriate or irrelevant questions during the

interviews.

Once decisions about the location for the interviews and the structure of interviews

were made, I needed to meet the participants for the interviews. As mentioned above, the first

round of interviews took place immediately after the sampling procedure was finalized. The

language used in the interviews was English which was the language spoken most fluently by

all of the participants. The length of each interview was approximately 30 minutes.

The goals for this round of interviews were to become more familiar with the

participants and to discuss, review, and confirm their answers in the first questionnaires. I also

encouraged them to provide more detail about their personal experience with language learning,

for example, how they learned French or Spanish, how the courses were organized and whether

they enjoyed the courses. If there was anything that was not quite clear, I asked the subject for

their explanation or more elaboration by saying, for instance, “Sorry, I didn‟t understand very

well what you mean. Could you explain that again?” or some similar request. On the other

hand, I also kept in mind that I am not an English native speaker. Hence, before the interview

began, I always told the participants that they could always ask me for further clarification as

well when they did not understand my words.

Step 5: Administering Questionnaire 2

In about the sixth week of the language course, I distributed the second questionnaires

(see Appendix B) to the participants. The rationale behind the timing of administering this

questionnaire was very simple: because it contained only questions regarding learning German

vocabulary and the use of vocabulary learning strategies. If the participants had to finish the

122

questionnaire right at the beginning of the semester, they could not provide much useful

information since they had just started learning German. But in the sixth week of the semester,

the participants had finished the first chapter of the textbook and had learned some German

vocabulary. It made more sense to administer this questionnaire at this point because they were

much more capable of answering the open-ended questions such as how they find out the

meaning of unknown words, how they study the word forms, how they memorize the gender of

nouns and so on.

After the second questionnaires were filled out, I read through the answers carefully

and took notes when participants‟ answers needed more clarification and explanation. These

notes were later used to form the second set of guideline questions for the next round of

interviews which took place soon afterwards.

Step 6: Interviews, Round 2

The second round of interviews was undertaken in a similar way as the first round. The

location, the setting, the structure, and the language used for the interviews remained the same.

However, I noticed a difference during the second round of interviews: A rapport, “a quality of

a communication” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 189) had been slowly achieved. The participants

and I had known each other better than at the beginning of the research. Through the first

round of interviews and ongoing course observation, I had a much better picture of them as

individuals. I no longer regarded them simply as the “informants” of my research who

provided the information that I needed. They had also come to know me better, had become

accustomed to my presence in class, and felt more comfortable with my endless questions and

their participation in my research. They were reassured constantly from the very beginning of

123

their participation that there were no right or wrong answers to my questions, and that the

purpose of my questions were not to judge whether they were good or poor learners, but to

understand how they learn German vocabulary.

Both rounds of interviews were audio recorded in the recorder, then transferred to the

host computer, and finally burned onto a VCD for further analysis. In accordance with the

ethical guidelines, the entire interview files were immediately deleted from the host computer

after the VCD had been created.

In sum, the data collected up to this point, i.e., from the questionnaires and interviews,

illustrate an overall picture of what the research participants do to learn vocabulary. It reveals

that the participants did use vocabulary learning strategies for vocabulary tasks, for instance,

for finding out the meaning of unknown words and memorizing the form and meaning of the

words. They mentioned various vocabulary learning strategies such as looking up words in the

dictionary, using flash cards or using the textbook for review, etc. Also, each of the participants

coped with vocabulary learning in a similar yet different way. For instance, for memorizing the

spelling of words, two participants mentioned that verbal repetition was the major strategy they

use. However, one said that she also spelled out each single letter aloud, while the other stated

that he needed to look at the words as well while he repeated them. I will present the results of

the questionnaires and interviews in depth later in Chapter Six.

Nevertheless, the data served only as a means of retrospection, since participants‟

answers to the questionnaires and during the interview might not be “a true reflection of what

actually happens when a learner tackles a word” (Nation, 2001, p. 224). Also, it did not provide

any detail on how the individual vocabulary learning strategy was carried out, for instance:

How do the participants use dictionaries or other reference materials? How are the flash cards

124

made and used? In my opinion, it is important to know not only what strategies are used, but

also how they are used. Finally, the questionnaires and interviews did not really reveal

participants‟ thinking processes while studying vocabulary. Therefore, for the next step of data

collection, I aimed to investigate what participants do and think while they are actually

studying vocabulary.

Step 7: Conducting think-aloud protocols

In order to gather data on what the research participants actually do and their thinking

processes during a vocabulary task, I created a series of vocabulary learning activities (which

will be presented in subchapter 5.4 below), and asked the participants to think aloud: In general,

the participants were required to keep on talking, speak out loud whatever thoughts came to

mind as they carried out the tasks at hand.

Think-aloud is one of the verbal report methods. There are other verbal report methods

that can be used to elicit information underlying cognitive processes,86

such as retrospection,87

introspection,88

and questions and prompting. However, I chose think-aloud as one of the data

collection methods because this method has the following characteristics and merits when

comparing it to other methods and is most suited for my research: First, there are no prompts or

questions which will interrupt the thinking process (see for example Chi et al., 1989; Ferguson-

Hessler & de Jong, 1990). Also, participants may encounter difficulties in returning to the

86

There is a variety of verbal reports applied in second language research. Brown and Rodgers (2002), Cohen

(1987), Faerch and Kasper (1987), Ericsson and Simon (1993), van Someren, Barnard, and Sandberg (1994) all

provide a detailed introduction of verbal reports. 87

In retrospection, the cognitive processes are verbalized, in an ideal case immediately after the task is finished as

much information is still in short-term memory. If the information is not elicited until long after the task is

completed, it is referred to as “delayed retrospection” (Faerch & Kasper, 1987) 88

According to van Someren, Barnard, and Sandberg (1994), this technique stands somewhere between

retrospection and thinking aloud: participants in introspection are instructed to report not after completing the

problem-solving task, but at intermediate points chosen by the subject. However, participants are also encouraged

to interpret in order to provide an accurate, complete and coherent report on a cognitive process

125

point where they were stopped and subsequently resuming. Second, during the think-aloud

procedure, the participants are encouraged to give a concurrent account of their thoughts at the

same time as they carry out the vocabulary exercises. Data are gathered very directly without

delay. This could avoid invalidity and incompleteness of the data due to memory errors. Last

but not least, based on an extensive review of the psychological studies on the issue of

reactivity, Ericsson and Simon (1993) indicate that there is no evidence that think-aloud

triggers changes in research participants‟ cognitive processes while performing the tasks,

although in some cases participants need a longer time to complete the exercises. “Thinking

aloud does not lead to a reliable change in the cognitive process as reflected in accuracy of

response” (p. XX). In the field of second/foreign language learning research, Ericsson and

Simon‟s statement was subsequently empirically proven by Leow and Morgan-Short (2004) in

a study of the processes of learning the impersonal imperative in Spanish.

Although using think-aloud protocols has various advantages, the data must be elicited

with caution, otherwise “small errors in the procedure can render the data almost useless” (van

Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994, p. 41). Anderson (1996), Brown and Rodgers (2002),

Cohen (1987, 1996), van Someren, Barnard, and Sandberg (1994) all provide very clear and

useful instructions and suggestions on how to carry out valid and complete think-aloud

protocols. My data collection follows the following six general principles to produce useful

and accurate protocols:

(1) Training: It is important to train the participants prior to actually carrying out the think-

aloud protocols, because thinking aloud is not what the participants usually do when they

study. Thus, practice is necessary. I gathered the participants (two at a time) one day

before the scheduled think-aloud day. In the training sessions, I explained to them what

126

thinking-aloud is and how to produce the protocols. They were encouraged to speak out

loud what went through their mind and to avoid explanation or interpretation of what they

were doing. We also practiced the method by using some exercises provided in Brown and

Rodgers (2002).

(2) Location: “The first thing to do when one wants to get a subject to think aloud is to make

sure that the setting is such that the subject feels at ease” (van Someren, Barnard, &

Sandberg, 1994, p. 41). Bearing this principle in mind, and with the help from a

departmental faculty member, I found a quiet and bright room for producing think-aloud

protocols. There was a large desk which the participants could use. Behind that desk there

was also a small desk where I could sit and listen to the participants clearly but without

disturbing them.

(3) Language: Should the participants use their L1 or the target language (German) to carry

out the protocols? The general principle for this issue is that the participants should use

any language that they feel comfortable with so that they can speak freely. In my research,

this issue was easily solved since all the participants were only beginners in German and

native or near native speakers of English. Hence, the protocols were all carried out in

English.

(4) Instructions: The researcher‟s instruction plays an important role in gathering think-aloud

protocols. On the one hand, the instructions about the vocabulary exercises that they are

going to undertake should be clear to the participants; on the other hand, the instruction

should not be too “directive” because “you [i.e., the researcher] want to know what the

participants are thinking not what they think about what your are thinking” (Brown &

Rodgers, 2002, p. 58). Following this suggestion, before the participants started to perform

127

the vocabulary exercises, I explained to them what the exercises were, and again,

encouraged them to constantly think out loud. They were also told if they were silent

longer than ten seconds, I would remind them by saying “keep thinking aloud.” However,

this was the only interference from me during the whole think-aloud procedure.

(5) Individual or pair: In most of the studies, think-aloud protocols are conducted individually.

Brown and Rodgers (2002) particularly point out that “verbal reports of mental processes

should avoid the usual social conversation of talking to someone” (p. 57). Also, using pair

think-aloud increases the chance that the participants analyze, explain, or interrupt their

thoughts, which is, as described above, strongly discouraged in carrying out think-aloud

protocols. Taking all these points into consideration, the think-aloud protocols in my study

were carried out individually.

(6) Recording device: As directed by Brown and Rodgers (2002), when producing think-aloud

protocols, the researcher should not just rely on observation to gather data. It is very

important to “always use a tape recorder or other recording device” (p. 57) and to make

accurate transcriptions. In my opinion, video recording is better than audio, because the

former can also record participants‟ actions, gestures or facial expressions, not merely

words. Especially in a study of learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies such as the

present one, participants did not only express words, but also carry out acts, for instance,

using a dictionary or checking their notes. As Brown and Rodgers (2002) point out, “there

is a lot of information in introspective reports aside from the words themselves.

Researchers need to be aware of these parallel signal systems and be prepared to include

them in their analyses” (p. 55). Hence, with the assistance from the Audio Visual Centre at

128

the University of Waterloo, all the think-aloud protocols were first video recorded, then

transferred to a computer, and finally burned onto several DVDs.

After I received the DVDs, I immediately started reviewing and transcribing the

protocols. During the transcription process, I found that at times, although not very often, the

participants‟ words were not comprehensible. I did not want to simply speculate what they had

said because their words are important for the data analysis later on. Hence, when there were

unclear parts in the transcription that needed to be clarified, I met the participants in the audio

recording room again. During these meetings, I showed the participants their performance in

the DVDs to help them recall what they had said during the protocols. This again proves that

using video recording devices is important for carrying out think-aloud protocols. It is useful

not only for recording participants‟ acts and words, but also for the accuracy of the

transcriptions.

In addition, the think-aloud protocols elicit much more detail about participants‟ use of

vocabulary learning strategies. The data reveal not only what vocabulary learning strategies the

participants used, but also how they used them to tackle vocabulary. For instance, during the

think-aloud protocols, most of the participants used the strategy “repetition” to memorize the

meaning of the words on the word list. However, one participant read through the word list

quickly one time, while the other participant rehearsed over and over again as well as tested

herself. These minute but significant differences in the use of strategies between the

individuals are readily captured by video recording.

Hence, I agree with Ahmed (1989, see Chapter Three of this thesis) that it is not

sufficient to simply look at the “macro”-level and conclude that, for instance, learners

frequently use repetition for memorization. It will be more helpful to further illustrate how the

129

learners actually carry out the repetition strategy. Therefore, I strongly believe that it is

important to let the participants actually show how they use the vocabulary learning strategies

especially when the research is aiming to explore in depth the use of vocabulary learning

strategies.

5.4 Materials for the Vocabulary Activities

As previously mentioned, in order to investigate participants‟ actual use of strategies

and their thinking processes during the strategy use, I designed a series of vocabulary activities

and asked the participants to think aloud while accomplishing the activities. The activities

begin with a word list study session, followed by a quiz and four follow-up exercises.

The activities were undertaken approximately in the ninth week of the course,

immediately after the mid-term exam. The setting for the think-aloud protocols has been

described above: It took place in a quiet and bright room; the whole procedure was video

recorded; the language used was English. In order to minimize the pressure of having to finish

the exercises in a certain amount of time, no time limit was set for the participants. All of the

participants finished the activities in about 60 to 70 minutes. In the following sections, I will

present the materials for the activities and describe the foci in these activities.89

The word list

The first activity required the participants to study a list of words and phrases which

derived from the Anlauftext of Chapter Three of Vorsprung. In Chapter Three, the Anlauftext

focuses on the topic “cultural stereotypes.” Anna talks about German stereotypes, while her

German relatives express their ideas about typical Americans. In total, I selected 7 verbs, 10

89

See Appendix C for a complete version of the materials.

130

nouns, 2 adverbs, 3 expressions (phrases) from the Anlauftext for the word list. I listed the 22

words/expressions randomly on a sheet without grouping them according to the part of speech

(see Figure 5.3 below for a simplified version of the word list). The participant was asked to

discover the meaning of the words/phrases and memorize the meaning and spelling.

Figure 5.3. A simplified version of the word list.

1. essen* (er isst)

2. der Bahnhof

3. wahrscheinlich


5. das Gepäck

6. wandern

7. bleiben

8. der Kaugummi

9. der Mund

10. tragen* (er trägt)

11. lächeln

12. der Fußball

13. die Schuhe

14. das Bier

15. mitbringen

16. fernsehen* (er sieht fern)

17. die Politik

18. das Wochenende

19. vielleicht

20. verstehen von (etwas)

21. halten* von (etwas) (er hält)

22. nur Bahnhof verstehen

The * sign indicates that the verb is a strong verb. Its conjugation for the 3rd

person

singular is provided in parentheses in italic.

The words/expressions on the list were not completely unfamiliar to the participants.

The Anlauftext was introduced in class very shortly before the think-aloud protocols were

undertaken. I chose the words and phrases that had been introduced to the participants because

I believed that the participants did not remember most of them. They had mentioned in the

questionnaires that they usually studied only shortly before quizzes or exams. Also, if they did

remember some of the words/phrases, it would be of interest to investigate why they

remembered some lexical items, but not other ones. Also, I presented the items on a list

because I wanted to show the participants explicitly what words they needed to study.

For finding the meaning of the words/expressions, the participants could use the items

they usually used, for example, the textbook, the notes they took in class, and a dictionary.

131

They could bring their own dictionary or use the bilingual German-English dictionary that I

provided.90

They could also use their vocabulary notebooks or flash cards if they had made

them. As described above, no time limit was set. The participants could have as much time as

needed. They were also told there would be a quiz immediately after the word list activity, but

the content or the format of the quiz was not revealed. The purpose of using the word list was

to investigate the following questions:

What kind of strategies do they use to find out the meaning of the words/expressions? Do

they refer to the Anlauftext and use the context to infer meaning of the words? Do they

analyze word parts? Do they consult their notes, textbook or dictionary? How do they use

these strategies?

What strategies do they employ to memorize the meaning of the words/expressions? Do

they use repetition? Do they use elaboration? Do they use mnemonics such as the keyword

method? How do they employ these strategies?

What strategies do they use to memorize the spelling of words? How do they use these

strategies? Do they notice the special orthographic form such as an Umlaut?

What strategies do they use to memorize the gender of nouns?

Do they recognize the words/expressions that they have just learned in class? Why do they

recognize or remember some words easier/better than others?

The quiz

The quiz was presented on a separate sheet. It consisted of 14 isolated lexical items in

English, each followed by a space in which the participants were required to write the German

90

Kopleck, H. et al. (Eds.). (2001). Collins Easy Learning German Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

Henceforth, I will cite it as Collins Dictionary.

132

equivalent. Participants were also asked to write down the definite articles (der, die, das) if the

word was a noun. If it was a verb, they were to write the infinitive. The order of the words in

the quiz was random and different from that of the word list (see Figure 5.4 below for a

simplified version of the quiz). No aids such as dictionary or textbook were allowed, only pens

and papers. Through the quiz, I wanted to study the following questions:

Can they remember the German equivalents when they see the English words?

Can they correctly spell the German words/expressions they have just studied?

Can they recall the grammatical gender of the nouns they have just studied?

Figure 5.4. Quiz for the vocabulary activities.

to eat: _______________________

to wear: _______________________

probably: _______________________

train station: _______________________

chewing gum: _______________________

to smile: _______________________

luggage: _______________________

to stay: _______________________

to understand nothing: _______________________

to hike; go hiking: _______________________

weekend: _______________________

to think of something: _______________________

to bring along: _______________________

mouth: _______________________

The four follow-up activities

The goal of the follow-up exercises was to investigate whether the participants could

accurately use the words they had just studied. The four activities were designed to progress

gradually from receptive to productive activities. This idea is based on the overall structuring

pattern of the activities in Vorsprung. In Vorsprung, as the authors point out, “activities are

133

carefully programmed to move from receptive to productive” (Lovik et al., 2002, p. IAE 5)

based on the belief that language instruction and learning “should focus initially on

comprehension” (ibid., p. IAE 7). Also, during the process of moving from receptive to

productive, I wanted to explore whether these activities help the participants process the words

they have studied more deeply.

The first two receptive exercises functioned as warm-up activities for the productive

exercises. The first exercise (see Figure 5.5 below) required participants to recognize words

that they had just studied from the word puzzle.

Figure 5.5. The word recognition exercise

In total, 21 words from the word list were incorporated (see Appendix C for the solution to the

word puzzle). At least ten words had to be found. The aim of this receptive activity was to

address the following questions:

Can the participants recognize the words that they have just studied?

Can they recall the meaning of the words they have studied when they recognize them?

A W O C H E N E N D E B C B F M

S T C F I N U I A O T H E L Ä G

G E Ä Ö F V R ß G T R A G E N H

H S C H U H E I E I V L Ö I H B

N W E T ß E V D P ß Ü T E B F V

K A Q G B M Ö O Ä I F E T E H I

V H U E A N F T C N G N U N O E

E R P O L I T I K Ä Q B I E R L

R S T Q L Ä C H E L N F T Q E L

S C H W E I N E F L E I S C H E

T H I ß K A U G U M M I G Ü B I

E E S S B Ü R O V Q U W T Q O C

H I F E R N S E H E N A R T F H

E N A Ü C D B S M ß D N Ä V ß T

N L G H H T D S J B T D O E P G

M I T B R I N G E N K E R Ä Ö M

D C Ä Ö H J A N L H G R T ß B H

C H G J E K O M B A H N H O F D

134

The second exercise was a matching activity. Seven sentences (see Figure 5.6) and

seven pictures were presented (see Figure 5.7). Participants were asked to match the sentences

with the pictures. The words they had just studied from the word list were incorporated in the

sentences. The aim of this receptive activity was to study the following questions:

Can the participants recognize the words that they have just studied in the sentences?

Can they recall the meaning of the words they have studied when they recognize them?

Can they understand the sentences correctly?

Figure 5.6. The seven sentences for the matching exercise

1. Muslime essen kein Schweinefleisch. Bild ______

2. Die Deutschen spielen gern Fußball und trinken gern Bier. Bild ______

3. Das kleine Mädchen trägt gern T-Shirts und Shorts. Bild ______

4. Der Mann bringt viel Gepäck mit. Bild ______

5. Der Junge sieht den ganzen Tag nur fern. Bild ______

6. Laura und Bill wandern sehr gern. Bild ______

7. Anna ist sehr freundlich. Sie lächelt immer. Bild ______

Figure 5.7. The seven pictures for the matching exercise

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

135

The third and fourth exercises were productive activities and were connected with each

other. For the third exercise, participants used their own words to discuss Canadian stereotypes.

This topic is connected to the Anlauftext of Chapter Three which discusses only German and

American stereotypes. However, I thought it would be more interesting and relevant to talk

about Canadian stereotypes in these two productive activities, since most of the participants

were born and grew up in Canada, and/or were studying in Canada. In case they had

difficulties with the topic, some helpful hints were given as follows: “For example, what does a

typical Canadian eat, drink, wear, and read? What about sport and music? The language(s)

he/she speaks?” The participants were encouraged to use the words or expressions they had

just studied and to write down as many words as possible in the circle (See Figure 5.8 below).

The fourth and last exercise is more productive than the preceding one. Participants were asked

to write a short essay with the words or phrases they wrote down in the third exercise. Through

these two productive activities, I aimed to investigate the questions below:

Do the participants use the words they have just studied from the word list? If they do, can

they recall the words without consulting the reference materials? Can they use the words

accurately in a context ?

If they do not use the words they have just studied, what other words do they use to talk

about Canadian stereotypes? How do they search for these words? What strategies do they

use to look for words they want to use? For instance, do they consult the dictionary or the

textbook? How do they use these reference materials? Can they use these words adequately

and accurately in a context?

136

Figure 5.8. Writing about Canadian stereotypes.

5.5 Data Analysis

In section 5.3, I thoroughly described how the data for my study were collected. This

section focuses on the data analysis – “the process of labelling and breaking down (or

decontextualizing) raw data and reconstituting them into patterns, themes, concepts, and

propositions” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 210).91

Transcribing the data collected from interviews and think-aloud protocols is “an

integral and important initial phase of data analysis” (Duff, 2008, p. 154). For my research, I

followed the basic form of the Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT; Selting et

al., 1998) for a consistent transcription.92

The purpose of interviews and think-aloud protocols

in my research was to get information about the participants‟ views on their second/foreign

language and vocabulary learning experiences and to shed light on their thinking processes

91

Although I explore the process of data analysis in the final part of the current chapter, it had actually already

started during the data collection phases. For instance, I made notes or wrote short summaries after reviewing

questionnaires or after conducting interviews and think-aloud protocols. In these notes or summaries, I highlighted

questions or the most salient point that arose from these data. 92

I chose the GAT because its basic version is suitable and useful for transcribing the data of this study. It captures

exactly what I needed to transcribe, and it allows me to leave out what was not important for my study.

137

during the use of vocabulary learning strategies, and not to do an analysis of turn-taking or

code-switching. Hence, while transcribing, I did not extensively measure the length of all

pauses or include behaviors such as eye gaze or nose scratching. However, I did note behaviors

related to strategy use, for instance, looking up words in the dictionary or in the textbook,

writing down words repeatedly, or using flash cards and so on.

After the transcription was completed, I started to find a focus or foci in the think-aloud

data for further analysis, because if all the think-aloud data were to be presented in a thick

descriptive manner, the present thesis would be excessively long. I decided to present “a lot

about a little” (Silverman, 2005; i.e., an in-depth description of a focus selected from the data)

rather than “a little about a lot” (i.e., a short description about every single point in the data). I

decided to focus on the participants‟ performance in the word list study session, because these

data show most extensively the participant‟s use of vocabulary learning strategies. The results

from the quiz and the follow-up activities will still be presented, but in the form of summary.

I then started to code the textual data at hand. Coding is an essential step for a

systematic data analysis because it helps the researcher to organize and make sense of the large

amounts of data. It refers to the process in which the researcher uses labels to classify and

assign meaning to a chunk or unit of data. These labels are called codes (Brown & Rodgers,

2002; Duff, 2008). They could be patterns, concepts, constructs, characters, items, or themes93

(Berg, 2007, p. 312f; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 216).

93

According to Berg (2007), a theme, in its simplest form, “is a simple sentence, a string of words with a subject

and a predicate” (p. 312). Duff (2008), following Miles and Huberman (1994), defined a theme as “a short code

word or phrase” such as resistance, or motivation.

138

A decisive issue during the initial stage of coding involves the source of codes.94

In

general, the categories can be determined “inductively, deductively or by some combination of

both” (Berg 2007, p. 311): Deductively determined categories are those that derive from the

existing theory or research, and from standard demographics, e.g., sex, race, occupation,

religion, place of residence (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 215). The other option is that the

categories emerge inductively from the data, from the “researcher‟s own lived experiences with

the scene” (ibid., p. 219) without drawing on already existing coding systems in the research

literature.

Brown and Rodgers (2002, p. 65) point out the advantages of taking one of the existing

coding systems:

(1) The coding system already exists, is documented, and has the prestige of published

acceptance.

(2) The study becomes part of a set which uses a common coding system and for which data

comparisons can readily be made.

However, Brown and Rodgers (ibid.) also reminded the readers that the existing coding

system may not fit the data perfectly. They suggested the researchers to “try employing a

coding system which already exists and adapt it as necessary. Go for an original system only if

the borrowed one proves clearly inadequate for your purposes” (p. 66).

In the field of vocabulary learning strategies, it is not uncommon at all that the

researchers use existing research literature as a source for labeling the vocabulary learning

94

Whether the researcher should emerge the codes deductively or inductively has been the subject of debate

among the grounded theorists, especially between Glaser (1992) and Strauss and Corbin (1998): Both deductive

and inductive ways were acceptable to Strauss and Corbin (1998; see p. 50-53.), although the latter is much

preferred by them. Contrary to Strauss and Corbin‟s broader stand, Glaser (1992) insisted that “there is a need not

to review any of the literature in the substantive area under study” (p. 31). Berge (2007) was of the opinion that

“in order to present the perception of the others [i.e., the research participants] in the most forthright manner, a

greater reliance on induction is necessary. Nevertheless, […] induction should not be undertaken to the exclusion

of deduction” (p. 312).

139

strategies (e.g., Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 1997; Stoff, 1995; Stork,

2003; Takač, 2008), especially strategies such as using dictionaries, guessing from the context,

and repetition. These have been much discussed in the literature, and have thus gained

published acceptance. It is pointless to discard these terms and to create new terms. Therefore,

for the data analysis of the current thesis, particularly for labeling the vocabulary learning

strategies mentioned or used by the participants, some of the codes are derived from the

research literature. Nevertheless, I did not exclude the possibility of coming up with a new

coding scheme. After deciding the source of codes, I read the data repeatedly and assigned

codes to the units of data. Then, I reviewed and compared the codes for a higher-level

classification or grouping. In total, 49 individual vocabulary learning strategies are identified

and further categorized. The results will be presented in Chapter Six.

140

Chapter Six: Study Results

In the previous chapter, I described how the data for my study were collected and

analyzed. This chapter focuses on the results of the study. It is divided into three subchapters.

The first part (Chapter 6.1) presents, in-depth, each participant‟s answers and thoughts from

questionnaires and interviews, as well as each participant‟s performance during the think-aloud

protocols. Then, in 6.2, I present a classification of the vocabulary learning strategies identified

during my study, and compare the six participants with regard to their use of vocabulary

learning strategies.

6.1 Results of the Individual Participants

This subchapter is composed of six sections (6.1.1 – 6.1.6). Each section presents the

results of an individual participant (sequence: 6.1.1 Anna, 6.1.2 Sarah, 6.1.3 Kevin, 6.1.4

Kenny, 6.1.5 Erik, and 6.1.6 Ian). Each individual participant‟s section is further divided into

three parts. In the first part, I describe the results from the questionnaires and the interviews

with three focuses:

Basic personal information

Language learning in general

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by the participant

First, I provide the basic personal information of the individual participants (such as

their age, education, language and family background, and motivation for taking GER 101).

Next, I describe their general language learning experience, including how they learned foreign

languages before, whether they enjoyed learning them, whether they enjoy the GER 101 course,

and their learning habits. Finally, I concentrate on the vocabulary learning strategies reported

141

by the participants. I describe what the participants said they do to learn vocabulary in and

outside of the classroom.

In the second part of each section, I present the results from the individual learner‟s

think-aloud protocols. First, I describe in detail the vocabulary learning strategies used in the

word list study session. I explore what the individual participants actually do when they

encounter unknown words, what they do to memorize a word‟s meaning and spelling, and how

the vocabulary learning strategies are carried out. Then, the results from the quiz and the

follow-up activities are briefly summarized.

At the end of each individual section, I summarize the reported and used vocabulary

learning strategies and discuss the individual differences by illustrating the essential

characteristics of each participant‟s use of vocabulary learning strategies. For a better

understanding of the structure of the individual participant section, Figure 6.1 below provides

an overview of the basic organization of the individual section (with 6.1.1 Anna as an example).

Figure 6.1. Example of the basic organization of the individual participant section

6.1.1 Anna

6.1.1.1 Results of the Questionnaires and Interviews



Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Anna

6.1.1.2 Results of the Think-Aloud Protocols

Vocabulary learning strategies used by Anna at the word list study session

Results of the quiz

Results of the follow-up activities

6.1.1.3 Analysis of Anna‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

Before I proceed to the study results, I would like to briefly point out that this

subchapter is written in a more personal narrative manner and a less formal and academic tone.

During the data collection period, I became acquainted with the participants. They shared their

142

learning experiences, thoughts, and stories with me. Now, they are more than just “somebody”

who participated in my study. Through a more narrative writing style, I want to accurately

reflect the atmosphere, their thoughts and performance during the think-aloud procedures and

present the results in a way that attempts to bring the readers close into the participants‟

worlds.95

Also, my descriptions below may seem to contain my own subjective voice. However,

as a researcher of a qualitative research, it is impossible to interpret the results entirely

objectively. In fact, Stake (1995) argues that “the intent of qualitative researchers to promote a

subjective research paradigm is a given. Subjectivity is not seen as a failing needing to be

eliminated but as an essential element of understanding” (p. 45; also cited in Duff, 2008, p. 56).

Duff (2008) also believes that subjectivity is “an inevitable engagement with the world in

which meanings and realitites are constructed (not just discovered) and in which the researcher

is very much present” (p. 56).

6.1.1 Anna



Anna, an 18-year-old first year student, would like to major in economics. Her family

originated in Hong Kong, China, and moved to Trinidad decades ago. She was born and grew

up in Trinidad. She came to Canada in August 2006 as an international student to begin her

studies at the University of Waterloo. Although her family had a Chinese background, English

is her first language (L1). Neither she nor her parents speak Chinese or Cantonese, although

95

See also Adler and Adler (1994), Duff (2008), Richardson (1990, 2000), Richardson and St. Pierre (2005), van

Maanen (1988) for more discussions on stylistic issues in writing a qualitative study.

143

three of her four grandparents were Cantonese speakers. She speaks English exclusively at

home. From age 11 to 18, she learned French and Spanish at schools in Trinidad. She enrolled

in GER 101 because she was very interested in the language. Also, she planned to go to Europe

to work or for further study in the future. She believed that, since she already had knowledge of

French and Spanish, learning German would help her to communicate with people there even

more easily when traveling in Europe.


Through the course observation, I noticed that she was usually very active in the

German classroom. She never missed a class and always tried to answer the instructor‟s

questions. In the questionnaire, she indicated that she did not like to work in a group in class,

but preferred to work on her own. Outside the class, she usually studied on her own as well.

However, when the course instructor assigned group work, she did not object to working with

the other group members. If she did not understand something, she would ask the instructor

directly instead of seeking help from her peers. Textbooks, course materials, and the course

instructor were her primary resources for learning, including learning languages.

As mentioned above, Anna was an experienced language learner. She had learned

French and Spanish for seven years from ages 11 to 18. She was fairly confident in her ability

to learn languages, and viewed herself as a good language learner, especially when it came to

reading and writing. However, when it came to listening comprehension or speaking the

language, she was not so certain. In the interviews, she admitted that listening was very

difficult for her, even in French and Spanish, which she had learned for a long time: “the truth

is ... the listening comprehension, I don‟t do as well, because you know, the hearing and the

144

speaking, that does not come that easily” (Anna, Interview 2, 354-357).96

During the GER 101

course, when she needed to write the lab tasks, which usually aim to test students‟ listening

comprehension, she did not often understand the contents of the task and had to rely on

guessing. When speaking, she was often hesitant, especially if she believed her classmates

were better speakers, because she did not want to make mistakes. However, if her classmates

were at the same level or not as proficient as she was, then she was not as worried about her

self-image and was more willing to speak.

Regarding the awareness of learning vocabulary, she believed that vocabulary is

important, because “if you don‟t know any vocabulary, you cannot really say much” (Anna,

Interview 2, 3-4). Nevertheless, she also emphasized in the interview that vocabulary only

plays a more important role when beginning to learn a language. She said, “as you learn more

of something, grammar becomes more important” (Anna, Interview 2, 12-13). I also noticed

that she put much effort into learning grammar in the GER 101 course. She asked the course

instructor to recommend to her some extra grammar exercise books for more practice. She

explained why she paid much attention to grammar in the interview. She said that it was

because the (French and Spanish) language courses before were very much grammar-orientated.

Using the languages in communication was not the focal point of the courses. Hence, she had

been accustomed to learning a language through repeated grammar drills. On the other hand,

she also thought she could comprehend grammar concepts very well. This also motivated her

to focus more on grammar.

96

The information in parenthesis indicates the source of the quotation in the transcription.

145

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Anna

When asked about her experience in learning vocabulary in German, Anna answered

that, in general, she had not encountered much difficulty. In the classroom, she usually took

notes and tried to write down everything the instructor taught. She had a notebook which she

kept for the GER 101 course. She had an organized and systematic way of recording new

lexical items in the notebook: she usually wrote the new words in the form of a word list with

two columns. She wrote the words in German in the left column and listed English equivalents

in the right column.

Because the notebook did not only contain new vocabulary items, but also grammar

rules or sentences taught in class, Anna used it as a significant resource for her vocabulary

learning process. When she needed to write a short essay for the homework, she usually looked

for words in her notes. She did not study regularly, but she reviewed the course notes

especially before quizzes or exams.

When encountering unknown words, Anna said that she avoided turning to a dictionary

immediately. She usually tried to guess the meaning from the context first. She emphasized

that the dictionary was usually the last option she chose. She developed his strategy a long time

ago while she was learning French in schools in Trinidad. She explained that in the upper-year

French classes, the instructor gave the students many reading comprehension exercises and

asked them to guess the meaning of unknown words from the context. Students read many

authentic articles from French newspapers or magazines and were asked to answer questions

about the articles in full sentences, and to summarize the articles in their own words. Anna

emphasized that “using a dictionary usually handicaps you, because then you won‟t learn to

guess things from the context” (Anna, Interview 2, 265-266).

146

Besides guessing from context, Anna also tried to recognize word parts when she

encountered an unknown word. She explained step by step how she carried out this strategy,

using the German word Geburtstag (birthday) as an example: First, she noticed that it is

capitalized, so it must be a noun. She also knew that Tag means day in English, so she guessed

that the word must be related to -day. Since she had learned the weekdays (Montag,

Dienstag, ... Sonntag) in German, she knew that Geburtstag had nothing to do with the

weekdays. Then she asked herself: How many words go with a day? Not that many. She

explained, “I mean, after you learn the weekdays there are not many that go with a day” (Anna,

Interview 2, 205-207). Hence, she was confident of the guess that Geburtstag means birthday.

Anna stressed in the interview that only when neither of the two strategies mentioned

above could be of much help did she turn to a print dictionary.97

She said she used an online

dictionary sometimes, too (e.g., Google translation). Finally, Anna also revealed that she

consulted her own course notes to look up words for which she could not remember the

meaning.

To memorize the meaning of the target words in German and their English equivalents,

Anna made connections between the target word and her existing knowledge, which could be a

French or Spanish word that she had learned before. In the interviews, Anna gave details about

how this strategy works. Taking the German noun Fenster (window) as an example: to her,

Fenster looked and sounded similar to its French equivalent fenêtre. Since she was already

familiar with the French word fenêtre and knew it means window in English, it was not

difficult for her to remember the German target word Fenster.

97

The one that she usually used was: Larousse Pocket Dictionary: German-English English-German. (2001). Paris:

Larousse

147

Figure 6.2. From Fenster to fenêtre to window.

Target word Mediator L1

Fenster fenêtre (French) window

Thus, the existing knowledge of fenêtre functioned like a “mediator”98

and led her to equate

Fenster with window (see Figure 6.2 above). The mediator may share similarities in spelling

and/or sound with the target word, which made memorization easier.

Anna also made sound connections between the target word and its English (L1)

equivalent. For example, to memorize the German noun Tür, she tried to pronounce the L1

equivalent door like dur, and then dür (see Figure 6.3 below). She explained in the interviews:

“Tür, door. If I say door, I can say dur, dür, tür. Eventually, it comes around” (Anna,

Interview 2, 215-217). In this case, the mediator was not even a real word. It was created on

the basis of a sound similarity for the purpose of memorization.

Figure 6.3. From door to dür to Tür.

Target word Mediator L1

door dur dür Tür

In regards to remembering the spelling of the target German words, Anna indicated that

she always tried to remember the orthography of the target words with the help of correct

pronunciation. Hence, learning the correct pronunciation of the target words was a very

important focus in her vocabulary learning process. Anna explained, “A lot of people learn

French and Spanish, but they pronounce the words in English. I cannot do that. That is terrible.

I don‟t like that. So whenever I think of the word, I always pronounce it the way it is supposed

to be” (Anna, Interview 2, 395-400). She noticed that “many people don‟t know how to spell

98

In German, there is a similar term called Eselsbrücke which is defined as “Anhaltspunkt als Gedächtnisstütze”

(an aid or a hook for memory enhancement) in Duden Deutsches Universal Wörterbuch.

148

things correctly because they pronounce [them] badly” (Anna, Interview 2, 414-415). In other

words, she thought that correct pronunciation facilitates memorizing the spelling. She also

believed that this was especially important for learning German, because German

pronunciation was, in her own words, “very logical,” i.e., words are pronounced as they are

spelled.

So how did Anna learn the pronunciation of German words? How did she improve her

pronunciation? Anna revealed in the questionnaires that she listened to and repeating the

professor‟s words. That is, to her, the course instructor was the main resource for learning

pronunciation. However, she also stressed that she rarely said the words out loud, even when

she practiced pronunciation. Instead, she repeated the word silently in her brain. “I don‟t really

do anything out loud. […] I think of it in my mind,” explained Anna, “because, I mean, people

in the room ... In my whole life, I have rarely had a room for myself, so if I start reading things

out loud, people would think I am crazy” (Anna, Interview 2, 345-348).

For memorizing the gender of German nouns, Anna admitted that it was a very difficult

problem for her, although, in learning French and Spanish, she had encountered this difficulty

before. However, she indicated that genders in French and Spanish are much easier, and they

have only two genders (i.e., masculine and feminine), not three. In order to reduce the

difficulty, she tried to find rules that she could follow. For instance, she noticed that sometimes

words in the same semantic field have the same gender. For example, languages are usually

neuter, such as das Englisch, das Deutsch, das Französisch, and the four seasons of a year are

all masculine (der Frühling, der Sommer, der Herbst, der Winter). In addition, she also noticed

that nouns ending in -chen carry the neuter gender, such as das Mädchen, das Hähnchen, and

occupation words with the suffix –in are feminine, such as die Professorin, die Studentin, die

149

Lehrerin. Keeping these observations in mind helps her to recall the gender of those nouns

more easily.

What about the nouns that do not carry suffixes that indicate their gender, such as der

Stuhl, das Fenster, der Tisch? How did Anna cope with them? She answered with laughter, “go

with der, that‟s what I do. I assume it is masculine when I don‟t know” (Anna, Interview 2,

465-467). She also pointed out that the course instructor once gave the students some advice to

facilitate the recollection of noun gender: the use of color coding. However, Anna said that it

did not work for her: “I don‟t remember the color at all, so even if I‟ve done it, I really don‟t

remember the color” (Anna, Interview 2, 480-482).

In order to ensure that the meanings of target German words were well stored in her

memory, Anna always tested herself. She carried out this strategy by first covering the English

equivalents, looking at the German words, and trying to remember the English words, and vice

versa. If she could not recall the words, she would uncover them and study them again. She

repeated this testing process until she could recall the target words as well as their English

equivalents.

In terms of using the words, Anna simply used the learned words in the homework

assigned by the instructor. She did not watch German movies or listen to German music

outside of the class. Neither did she attend the events organized by the departmental German

club. She explained that it was because she has other courses to go to and she did not think

movies would help to improve her German efficiency since listening comprehension, as

mentioned above, was her weakness. She stated, “I am not so good at listening, and you know,

in the movie, they have more slang and more colloquial words and it did not add up too much

150

for me. Even though I have learned French or Spanish for so long, when I see [French or

Spanish] movies, I‟m still puzzled for most of it” (Anna, Interview 2, 500-511).

6.1.1.2 Think-Aloud Protocols

Vocabulary learning strategies used by Anna in the word list study session

The similarity in spelling and/or sound between the target word and English equivalent

made it very easy for Anna to infer the meaning of the words Fußball, Bier, and Politik. Anna

was very confident that they mean football, beer, and politics because they sound and look

very similar to the English equivalents. Also, when Anna saw the word Schweinefleisch, she

said immediately that “that‟s swine flesh, and that will be pork” (Anna, Thin-aloud protocols

[TAP], 7-8). Her explanation indicates that she first segmented Schweinefleisch as Schweine

and Fleisch and then recognized it is swine flesh by the similarities in spelling and sound.

These strategies – recognizing part(s) of the word and connecting the target word to

other German word she already knew – were evident as Anna tried to discover the meaning of

the verb fernsehen. As Anna saw this word, she immediately pointed out that sehen is [to] see

and Fernseher is TV, so she believed that fernsehen must be to watch TV. This process

demonstrated the following points: First, she knew the meaning of sehen. Second, she was

familiar with the word Fernseher (appears in Vorsprung, Chapter One, p. 26). Third, she

noticed fernsehen is also a verb like sehen. Using her existing knowledge, she arrived at the

correct conclusion that fernsehen means to watch TV.

The textbook Vorsprung also played an important role in Anna‟s discovery of the

meaning of the words bleiben, Gepäck, Kaugummi, Mund, wahrscheinlich, and vielleicht. She

found the meanings of bleiben and Gepäck in the Wortdetektiv, and she discovered the

151

meanings of Kaugummi, Mund, vielleicht, and wahrscheinlich by looking up in the Wortschatz

(Vocabulary List) section at the end of Chapter Three.

Anna‟s own notes also helped her discover meanings of unknown words. For instance,

as she saw the word lächeln, she could not recall what it means, but she remembered that she

wrote it down in her notes during the class. Hence, she looked it up in her notes and indeed

found it there.

Besides the textbook and her notes, the print dictionary was another reference tool

Anna consulted to find the meanings of unknown words. For instance, she looked up the word

Schuhe in the dictionary and found that Schuhe is shoes.

It is also worth mentioning how Anna recalled the meaning of Bahnhof. When she first

saw the word Bahnhof, she could not remember what it means. She skipped the word and

moved on to quickly read through the word list. As she saw the last item on the list – nur

Bahnhof verstehen – she suddenly recalled that Bahnhof is train station. She said, “oh,

Bahnhof! The train station! I remember it now because nur Bahnhof verstehen is to not

understand anything” (Anna, TAP, 44-47). This indicates that her memory of the idiom nur

Bahnhof verstehen was vivid and led her to recall the word Bahnhof. The reasons why she

remembered the idiom may be: (1) Because of the oddity of this idiom, the instructor spent

more time explaining it in class, thereby enhancing Anna‟s memory. (2) Because the idiom

itself is unusual. As pointed out previously in Chapter Four of the present thesis, unusual

stimuli attract people‟s attention, which is fundamental for moving information from sensory

register to working memory.

Anna found the meanings of most of the lexical items correctly, except one: the phrase

halten von etwas. She looked up halten in her own notes and found out that halten alone means

152

to hold. Since she knew that vestehen von etwas is to know something, she came to the

conclusion with confidence that halten von etwas must mean to hold something.

After Anna discovered the meaning of a lexical item, she immediately wrote the

English equivalent next to the German word in the word list, such as to eat – essen, like a word

pair. This was similar to how she recorded vocabulary in her notebook (see descriptions above).

After the meanings of all lexical items were found and all their equivalents in English were

written, she returned to the top of the list and started to memorize the meanings and spelling of

the items.

Another vocabulary learning strategy she used was to connect the target word to other

German words she already knew. For instance, to memorize the meaning of Bahnhof, she said,

“der Bahnhof ... train station. Autobahn is for cars, so train station is Bahnhof” (Anna, TAP,

144-145). Also, she connected lächeln to the similar verb lachen. She said, “lachen is to laugh

and lächeln is to smile” (Anna, TAP, 274).

It is very interesting to notice how Anna memorized the meanings of words by making

sense of them. As Anna discovered that Kaugummi means chewing gum in English, she

immediately saw gum in Kaugummi and then tried to “reason out” the meaning of Kaugummi.

She said, “Kaugummi, chewing gum, because it has gum in it. Gummi, gum, chewing gum, hm,

makes sense” (Anna, TAP, 74-76). In other words, Anna made sense of the word by looking at

both Kaugummi and gum and finding what is common between them.

Anna also tried to memorize the word pair Gepäck – luggage by making the connection

Gepäck – pack – luggage. She said, “das Gepäck is luggage. Luggage, luggage, pack, hm,

makes sense” (Anna, TAP, 63-65). Here, the word pack plays the mediator role: it shares

similarities in sound and spelling with Gepäck, and is also semantically related to luggage.

153

In addition, Anna uttered many oral repetitions. She read the word list and repeated all

the words a number of times, especially those whose meanings she could not recall

immediately, such as Gepäck, bleiben, Mund, lächeln, wahrscheinlich, and vielleicht.

Sometimes, she also repeated the English equivalents of the German words as word pairs.

For the word pair vielleicht – maybe, Anna also did the following to assist her memory:

she repeated, “Maybe vielleicht ... maybe vielleicht ... maybe he‟ll like” (Anna, TAP, 207-209).

“maybe vielleicht” rhymes somewhat with “maybe he‟ll like”. By making a sound connection,

Anna found her own unique way to deal with vielleicht – maybe.

Anna also made written repetitions. However, she used this vocabulary learning

strategy only for the German words wahrscheinlich and vielleicht. As she orally repeated these

two words, she also wrote them several times on the same page of the word list. This indicates

that these two words were particularly difficult for her so she needed to make an extra effort to

learn them.

Anna also noticed that fernsehen and mitbringen are both separable verbs. She added a

bracket symbol between fern and sehen and between mit and bringen (i.e., mit]bringen;

fern]sehen). She also wrote “separable prefix” besides the two verbs to remind herself.

Furthermore, Anna placed a new word in a sentence to enhance her memory. For

instance, as she worked on the word pair, tragen – to wear, she said, “to wear ... tragen ...

alle ... alle Deutschen tragen Lederhosen ... alle Deutschen tragen Lederhosen” (Anna, TAP,

227-229).

Oral repetition was also the strategy Anna used to remember the gender of German

nouns on the word list. As Anna repeated nouns orally, she usually included their gender too.

For instance, she repeated “mouth, der Mund, der Mund,” not simply “mouth, Mund.”

154

Finally, Anna tested herself to ensure that she remembered the meanings of all the

lexical items. She used an extra paper to cover the column of the German words. She looked at

the column of the English words and said the German equivalents. She tested herself several

times until she knew all of the meanings of the target words accurately.

Results of the quiz

Anna did very well in the quiz. Among the 14 items, she only misspelled the word

wahrscheinlich (she wrote warscheinlich), and did not answer the phrase to think of something

(halten von etwas) correctly (she wrote denken von etwas). The latter is not surprising because

she did not find the correct meaning of halten von etwas in the first place.


For the first and the second receptive activities, Anna had no difficulties at all finding

out the German words in the chart or to understand the sentences and match them with the

pictures. Actually, for the first exercise, she found all of the 20 words incorporated in the chart

within a very short period of time. In the second activity, she recognized all the words she had

just studied, such as Schweinefleisch, Fußball, Gepäck, trägt, fernsehen … and so on.

In the third activity – writing about a typical Canadian – she put the following

words/phrases in the circles:

das Buch

das T-Shirt

der Käse

der Kaffe

nach Tim Hortons

der Cola

das Englisch und das Französisch

der Rockmusik

155

die Limo

Some of the words were found in the print dictionary. For instance, she wanted to say

that “Canadian people drink soft drinks,” but she did not know how to say soft drinks in

German. So, she referred to the Collins Dictionary and looked up soft drink in the English-

German section. However, soft drink was not listed as an entry there, soda and soda pop were.

Soda was translated as das Sodawasser and soda pop as die Limo. She chose to add die Limo

into the circle.

It is interesting to notice that she wrote der Cola (should be das or die Cola) and der

Rockmusik (die Rockmusik). As Anna herself described in the interviews, when she was not

sure about the article of the noun, she “goes with der.”

In the fourth activity, she used the words in the circles and wrote a short essay as

follows:

Der typischer Kanadier trinke der Cola sehr gern.

Viele Kanadier haben der Tim Hortons Kaffe gern.

Alle Kanadier sprechen Englisch oder Französisch.

Nicht so wenige Kanadierinnen höre Rockmusik sehr gern.

Viele Kanadier essen der Käse gern.

Alle Kanadier tragen die T-Shirts gern im Sommer.

Nicht viele Kanadier lesen das Buch sehr gern.

Nicht alle Kanadier trinke die Limos jedes Tage.

In sum, for the productive activities, she did not use many of the words she had just

studied (only essen and tragen). Nevertheless, with help of the dictionary, she found many

other words to describe Canadian stereotypes. She conjugated the two verbs essen and tragen

and the other verbs such as haben, sprechen, lesen correctly, but not the verbs trinken and

156

hören.99

The sentences in the essay also revealed that Anna was not certain about the use of

definite articles. In other words, the two productive activities showed that knowing the German

equivalent of an English word (and its gender if the word is a noun) does not necessarily equal

knowing how to use the German word in a context.

6.1.1.3 Analysis of Anna‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

In the questionnaires and interviews, Anna said that, in order to discover meanings of

unknown words, she relied primarily on guessing from the context, and secondarily on

dictionaries or her course notes, or she asked the course instructor. Further, Anna said she took

notes in class, tried to pronounce the target words correctly to memorize the spelling,

connected the target words to words in French which she was very familiar with, and made

sound and/or meaning connections (e.g., door – Tür). As for remembering the gender of a noun,

she noticed that some words in the same semantic fields share the same gender, and that

suffixes are also a helpful indicator of the gender. After studying the words, she always tested

herself. Doing homework assigned by the course instructor was the only thing she did to

actually use the words.

In the think-aloud protocols, Anna recognized the similarities in spelling and/or sound

between the target word and its English equivalent (e.g., Fußball, Bier, Politik,

Schweinefleisch), or recognized part(s) of a word (e.g., sehen in fernsehen), and then inferred

the meaning. Also, she connected the target words to other German words she knew (e.g.,

fernsehen – Fernseher). She consulted various reference materials, such as the Wortdetektiv

activity in Vorsprung Chapter Three, the Wortschatz at the end of Chapter Three, her own

99

At that point, the participants had not learned the accusative case and the adjective endings. Thus, the structures

like Der typischer Kanadier… or haben der Tim Hortens Kaffe sehr gern should not be counted as errors.

157

notes, and the print dictionary. Finally, she translated the phrase(s) literally to infer the

meaning of the phrase halten von etwas. Further, she took notes and wrote the English

equivalents next to the German target words; she connected the target words to other German

words (e.g., Autobahn – Bahnhof; lächeln – lachen); she reasoned out the meanings of words

by finding what is common between the German word and its English equivalent (e.g., gum in

Kaugummi); she made a sound and meaning connection (e.g., “maybe-vielleicht, maybe he‟ll

like.”; Gepäck – pack – luggage); she paid attention to affix and root and added a bracket

between them (e.g., mitbringen, fernsehen); she placed a new word in a sentence (e.g., tragen:

“Alle Deutschen tragen Lederhosen.”); she repeated the word pairs orally and wrote the two

words vielleicht, wahrscheinlich repeatedly. As for the gender of nouns, she memorized the

definite article with the noun together. Finally, she tested herself to ensure that she had

remembered all the words properly. Table 6.1 below summarizes the vocabulary learning

strategies reported by Anna as well as actually used strategies during the think-aloud protocols.

Table 6.1. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Anna.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Recognizing part(s) of a word and then guessing the meaning

Guessing from the context

Consulting print dictionary (bilingual)

Consulting electronic dictionary

Consulting course notes

Asking the teacher or German native speakers

Connecting the target German word to words in languages other than

German (e.g., French or Spanish)

Connecting the target German word to other words in German (for

consolidation)

Making sound and/or meaning connections

Oral or silent repetition

Reviewing notes

Pronouncing words in German correctly to remember the word

spelling

Listening to the instructor‟s (or native speaker‟s) pronunciation

Remembering the gender of nouns by the semantic field

158

Remembering the gender of nouns by the suffix

Testing herself

Doing homework assigned by the instructor

Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes


Recognizing the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the

German word and its equivalent in English or other languages (

cognates or borrowings)


meaning discovery)


Consulting the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List)

Consulting the Wortdetektiv activity in Vorsprung


Translating phrases literally

Placing new words in sentences


consolidation)


Making sense of the meaning of words by finding what is common

between the German word and its English equivalent

Oral repetition

Written repetition

Orally repeating the definite article together with the noun

Reviewing notes

Making visual indication of the separability of the affixes and roots

Testing herself

After examining data from Anna‟s questionnaires, interviews, and think-aloud

protocols, I would describe her learning processes and her use of vocabulary learning strategies

as organized and structured. The characteristics of being organized and structured are clearly

shown in the way she created her course notes and studied the word list, and the way she

quizzed herself to be certain that she had remembered the words.

In addition, she used various vocabulary learning strategies to consolidate the word list.

Among all of the participants, she applied the most consolidation strategies in the word list

study session. The majority of the consolidation strategies she applied are elaboration strategies

159

(i.e., placing new words in sentences, connecting the target German word to other words in

German, making sound and/or meaning connections through a mediator, making sense of the

meaning of words). An essential feature of elaboration is to make sense of the to-be-

remembered information. Hence, I believe that making sense of the German target words or

any to-be-remembered information plays a crucial role in Anna‟s memory process. As she also

stated in the interviews, learning German vocabulary was not difficult for her, because she

thought German vocabulary (especially the pronunciation) makes sense (i.e., “logical” in her

own word). Thus, using various elaboration strategies perhaps could explain why she did well

in the quiz in my study. In sum, taking notes, reviewing the notes with various elaboration

strategies, and testing herself form the basic pattern of her use of strategies to learn vocabulary.

However, it is also significant to note that she did not use the textual context as a means

to infer the meanings of the words at all, although she especially emphasized the importance of

guessing from the context in the interviews. Nevertheless, it does not mean that she did not use

this strategy at all when she encountered unknown words. It is possible that the inconsistency

between her reported and actually used strategies was caused by the fact that the lexical items

in my study were not presented within a context.

Anna also reported that she used electronic dictionaries and asked the instructor for

meaning clarification when she encountered unknown words. Theses two strategies were not

evident in her think-aloud protocols because my study did not incorporate the instructor and

computers into the vocabulary activities. Yet this does not mean that Anna does not use these

two strategies in other learning situations.

Further, she reported that she used the strategy “connecting the target German words to

words in French or Spanish” for memorization. However, this strategy was not evident in the

160

vocabulary study session. I assume that it was not applied because the lexical items on the

word list were not similar to any French or Spanish words she knew, and thus, she was not able

to make such elaborative connections. It indicates that which strategies being used for

memorization has much to do with the words being memorized.

6.1.2 Sarah



Sarah was a 20-year-old first-year student. She would like to major in both Arts and

Business (international trade). She was born and grew up in Ontario, Canada. English is her L1.

She learned French for 5 years (from Grade 4 to 9) and Spanish for 6 months in high school.

She evaluated her French and Spanish as both very poor: She could understand some simple

words, but was not able to have a conversation in these two languages.

She took GER 101 primarily because she needed to fulfill the language requirement,

but also because she was interested in the language and culture. In addition, some relatives in

her family could speak a bit of German. She did not see them very often, and so far she had not

learned German from them. But from hearing conversations in German at some family

reunions, she found the language very interesting. She knew that Kitchener-Waterloo has a

large German population, and was familiar with the Oktoberfest. That was also one of the

reasons that she was interested in learning German.

161


In the interviews, Sarah further explained why she did not take French at UW to fulfill

the language requirement because she did not like the language itself very much. The

pronunciation of French was very difficult to her. She said, “There are too many silent letters, I

just don‟t get it” (Sarah, Interview 1, 26-27). She thought that languages like Spanish or

German make more sense, “because you pronounce each and every letter” (Sarah, Interview 1,

21-22). Taking French courses from Grade 4 to Grade 9 was a requirement in her school. After

Grade 9, it became optional, so she stopped.

Sarah described how French was taught in these classes. It seemed that the major focus

was on vocabulary: her teachers used many signs or flash cards to teach vocabulary. There was

always a central topic to introduce vocabulary, such as Halloween or Christmas, and

vocabulary was built around the central topic. Students learned how to conjugate verbs, but

they did not learn how to use the vocabulary in a context or in a real conversation. Neither did

the teachers encourage students to speak or to practice French in class: students could always

speak English. Sarah recalled, “The teachers are all English speaking people. So you can speak

English in class. Only in Grade 9, they made you say „Can I go to the bathroom?‟ in French,

and that‟s it” (Sarah, Interview 1, 82-86). After class, she didn‟t practice French much either.

She only studied in order to pass exams.

Compared to her unpleasant experiences of learning French, Sarah said that she enjoyed

the GER 101 course and was highly motivated to take German 102 Elementary German II

(GER 102) as well. One of the reasons for her positive attitude was that it was her own

decision to take German, and not a mandatory requirement. She also emphasized that having a

good instructor was the most significant reason for her to enjoy the course.

162

If her positive experiences of learning German continue, she would like to go to

Germany through the exchange program. She thought it is important and an advantage to be

proficient in German, since she studied International Trade and might make use of in her future

career. By “proficient,” she meant to be able to engage fluently in German conversations. In

other words, developing conversational skills (i.e., speaking) was her priority while learning

German. Writing skills were not so important to Sarah.

However, it is worth noticing that she also stated she did not like to be called on in

class by the instructor, although she was not scared to speak German. She said that she did not

mind working in a group in the language classroom, because then she could hide herself in the

group. She believed that, in this way, she would not be called on by the instructor. But when it

came to studying for exams or quizzes, she preferred to study alone to avoid distractions.

Sarah‟s self-description matched my impression of her through the course observation. Sarah

usually sat in the corner of the classroom and did not often volunteer to answer the instructor‟s

questions. Nevertheless, when she was called on, she was usually able to answer the question

very well.

With regards to the vocabulary learning experience, Sarah said that she was always

very keen to learn new words. She also thought that developing her vocabulary size was

important. She explained, “to have a bigger vocabulary is obviously better, because you can

better express what you are trying to say” (Sarah, Interview 2, 11-13). So far, the instructor and

the textbook Vorsprung are Sarah‟s primary resources for learning German vocabulary. “I am

just relying on the instructor and the course right now,” said Sarah (Sarah, Interview 2, 60-61).

She did not have an additional plan specifically for increasing her vocabulary size.

163

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Sarah

Sarah thought it important that the instructor was a German native speaker. She

remarked that it is actually the first time that she had a native speaker as a language teacher.

Her former language teachers, in French as well as in Spanish, were all English. She thought

that they all sound so English when they speak the foreign languages. She said, “I just think

when you are learning a language, you should have somebody who knows how to say the

words. I mean, after all, that‟s the person you are trying to sound like” (Sarah, Interview 2,

186-189). Hence, in class, she listened to the instructor‟s pronunciation very carefully and tried

to pronounce the word as accurately as possible. She stated that she practiced the pronunciation

when she was alone, to avoid attention from the instructor or her peers.

Sarah also took notes in the classroom. She had a notebook especially for GER 101.

The notes did not contain only vocabulary, but also sentences or grammatical information

presented in class. Sarah said that, when the instructor introduced new vocabulary, she always

wrote it down in the notebook. The words were written in the form of word pairs: the German

word and its English equivalent were placed on the same line, and usually separated by an

equal sign (=), for example: fragen = to ask.

As mentioned previously, Sarah considered accurate pronunciation an important aspect

of learning a foreign language. Thus, she attended to the pronunciation of words in her notes as

well. She not only wrote down the new German word, but also noted its pronunciation with

English spelling, particularly when the word had a special orthographic form. For example,

besides the word Tisch, she also added (tish) to remind herself that sch in German is

pronounced like sh in English.

164

These notes were important material for Sarah‟s vocabulary learning process. Sarah

usually reviewed the notes after class for about an hour, and especially before quizzes or exams.

She said she always did homework assigned by the course instructor. Sometimes after class,

she watched German movies with English subtitles with her sister, who was very interested in

international films. However, she did not try to use this media as a tool for learning German.

She simply wanted to enjoy the movies.

Sarah stated that, when encountering unknown words or when having any questions,

either in or out of the class, she rarely asked the instructor for clarification because she did not

want to interrupt or slow down the class discussion. She usually tried to find the answers to her

questions on her own after class. She usually simply used the Wortschatz (vocabulary list)

section at the end of each chapter and the German-English vocabulary in the reference section

at the end of the textbook. She mentioned that she never used print dictionaries to look up the

words. As for electronic dictionaries, she had used them only a couple of times.

In order to facilitate the memorization of words, Sarah revealed that, when preparing

for quizzes or exams, she usually made a list of words that she needed to study. Then she

focused on the items on the list and repeated them orally. For example, if she needed to

memorize the meaning of the German word Tisch, she would write “Tisch = table/desk” on a

list, and then repeat orally “Tisch table, Tisch table” several times. However, after the exams or

quizzes, she did not usually keep the word lists and review them again.

For studying the spelling of the target words, Sarah mentioned that oral repetition was

her major strategy as well. Take Tisch as an example again: she repeatedly spelled out loud

each letter of Tisch: “T-I-S-C-H, T-I-S-C-H.” As mentioned previously, Sarah thought

pronouncing the words in German correctly is important. She thought it is also very helpful for

165

remembering the spelling of words, because, as she remarked previously, “you pronounce each

and every letter.”

Oral repetition was also used to memorize the gender of nouns. For instance, in order to

recall that Tisch is masculine, Sarah said out loud der Tisch repeatedly until she had got “a

feeling of it,” to quote her own words (Sarah, Interview 2, 179).

Sarah indicated that, after the oral repetition session was over, she also quizzed herself

to ensure that she remembered all the words that she had studied. She simply covered the

words and tried to recall their meanings, spelling and grammatical gender (for nouns). If a

word could not be recalled, she returned to the start and worked on memorizing the forgotten

word again with repetition.

Why was Sarah so devoted to oral repetition? Had she ever tried other strategies to

facilitate memorization? She pointed out that the course instructor had introduced the class to

several different ways to help remember the gender of nouns, such as color coding and

analyzing the suffixes.100

However, she did not follow the advice, because she liked her own

way and she knew it worked best for her. She explained, “I like to do things on my own. […] I

am happy with my own way. I don‟t like people to force me to do things in their way, because

I know what works for me” (Sarah, Interview 2, 373-379). Additionally, she did not trust the

general guideline for the gender of nouns, because there might be exceptions to these rules. She

said she did not like to take a chance: “It makes me nervous when something says „usually‟.

[…] I‟d rather know for sure than assume” (Sarah, Interview 2, 312-316).

100

The course instructor gave the class a handout to introduce some general guidelines of the gender of nouns. For

instance, most nouns ending in -er are usually masculine.

166


Vocabulary learning strategies used by Sarah in the word list study session

As the session of word list study began, Sarah took a blank sheet of paper and put it

beside the word list. She wrote down “meaning of the words” at the top of the paper and started

to work through the word list, beginning with the first item essen. She first wrote down the

German target word, and then moved on to find its meaning.

In order to discover the meanings of unknown words on the list, Sarah relied heavily on

the textbook, particularly the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. She

basically looked for each lexical item there. Even when she recognized the words such as Bier,

Politik, and Wochenende which look or sound similar to their English equivalents and guessed

the meanings correctly, she still turned to the textbook to ensure her inferences were accurate.

As for the phrase verstehen von etwas, Sarah looked up the phrase in the textbook

German-English vocabulary and found the phrases verstehen von (see Figure 6.4 below) within

the text of the same entries for verstehen. Then she searched for a translation for etwas and

found that it is translated as some, somewhat. Hence, she interpreted the whole phrase as to

know something somewhat.

Figure 6.4. The entry verstehen in the German-English vocabulary in Vorsprung (Source:

Lovik et al., 2002, p. R-27).101

verstehen (verstand, hat verstanden)

to understand, comprehend [AL 1];

~ von + dat. to know something

(anything) about [AL 3]

101

According to Vorsprung, “The information in brackets indicates the chapter in which the word was first used

for recognition […] or the text section in which the word was presented as active vocabulary” (Lovik et al., 2002,

p. R-3). The abbreviation K. stands for Kapitel (chapter), AL stands for Anlauftext.

167

When encountering the next phrase, halten von etwas, she found it under the entry

halten (see Figure 6.5). It is translated as to think of. She remarked, “to think of, to think of

somewhat … It doesn‟t make a lot of sense. … to think of some … Ok, halten von etwas … to

think of some slash somewhat” (Sarah, TAP, 139-144). Her words indicate that she tried to

make sense of the odd outcome derived from the literal translation. Nevertheless, at the end,

she persuaded herself that halten von etwas means to think of some/something.

Figure 6.5. The entry halten in the German-English vocabulary in Vorsprung (Source: Lovik et

al., 2002, p. R-13).

halten (halt, hielt, hat gehalten) to

stop [K. 4]; ~ für + acc. to believe

someone to be [AL 10]; ~ von + dat.

to think of [AL 3]

Finally, Sarah had difficulties understanding nur Bahnhof verstehen. Sarah found in the

German-English vocabulary that Bahnhof verstehen is translated as to not speak much German

(Lovik et al., 2002, p. R-6), and that nur means only. So she interpreted nur Bahnhof verstehen

as only to not speak much German and thought it very awkward. However, she did not turn to

the Anlauftext where the phase originally appears to check the context.

As described above, Sarah wrote the meanings of the German words on an extra sheet

of paper. After she discovered the meaning of a German word, she wrote its English translation

in brackets right next to the German word, for example:

der Bahnhof (train station)

After finding the meanings of all the lexical items, Sarah worked on remembering the

meanings and spelling. First, she separated the words into 2 groups: nouns and verbs. Using

two new sheets of paper, she wrote down all the German nouns with the definite articles on one

168

paper, and verbs and phrases on the other paper. She also included wahrscheinlich and

vielleicht in the verb group which indicated that she did not know they are not verbs.

The main strategy Sarah used to memorize the spelling of the German words was to

spell every letter of the word aloud. For instance, while she wrote Kaugummi, she spelled

aloud K-A-U-G-U-M-M-I in English. When it is a long word like Schweinefleisch or

wahrscheinlich, she repeated the letters more times. She also paid attention to unusual German

letters. For instance, she noticed that Gepäck has the umlaut ä, and Kaugummi has two Ms.

After grouping the words on two separate sheets of paper, she returned to the noun

group. She quizzed herself on the meanings of the German nouns by writing down the English

translations beside them, for example:

der Bahnhof train station

das Schweinefleisch pork

Then she tested herself on the spelling of the nouns as well by covering the German

column (e.g., der Bahnhof, das Schweinefleisch), looking at the English translations (train

station, pork) and then writing down the German words again but in a different space on the

same page. Next, she uncovered the German column to check whether she had written the

words accurately. She noticed that she misspelled Gepäck (i.e., she wrote Gepät), so she

corrected it. Next, Sarah focused on the gender of the nouns. She divided the nouns into three

subgroups based on the gender. She wrote the English translations of the neuter nouns under

das-group, the masculine nouns in English under der-group, and the feminine noun under die-

group (see Figure 6.6 below).

169

Figure 6.6. An example of grouping strategy employed by Sarah.

Then Sarah quizzed herself again on spelling. This time, she looked at the English

words in Figure 6.6 above, and wrote down the German equivalents for each word next to the

English words (illustrated in Figure 6.7 below). While she was writing the nouns in German,

she also repeated the gender of each noun orally. For instance, das Schweinefleisch, das

Gepäck and so on. After writing all the nouns in German, she orally repeated the nouns in

German with their definite article again (i.e., das Schweinefleisch, das Gepäck and so on),

followed by the final round of oral repetition of both the nouns in English and their German

equivalents (i.e., pork, Schweinefleisch; luggage, Gepäck and so on).

Figure 6.7. An example of testing-oneself strategy employed by Sarah.

Next, she moved on to the group of verbs which she had written on the other sheet of

paper. Similarly to how she studied the group of nouns, she tested herself on the meanings and

spelling of the verbs, orally repeated the word pair (e.g., essen, to eat; wandern, to hike), and

spelled the letters out loud numerous times. She had to pay extra attention to wahrscheinlich,

vielleicht an d nur Bahnhof verstehen because she could not recall their meaning correctly

Das

pork

luggage

chewing gum

beer

weekend

Der

train station

mouth

soccer

shoe

Die

politics

Das

pork (Schweinefleisch)

luggage (Gepäck)

chewing gum (Kaugummi)

beer (Bier)

weekend (Wochenende)

170

when she tested herself. Finally, she returned to the noun group and tested herself on the

meanings, spelling and definite articles again, before she wrote the quiz.

Results of the quiz

Sarah did very well in the quiz. Among the 14 items, she had difficulty only with to

understand nothing. This is the only question she did not answer correctly (she wrote verstehen

von etwas). It is not a surprise because the textbook, on which she relied, translated the phrase

as not to speak much German, not as to understand nothing.


In the first activity, Sarah found the 10 German words very quickly: Wochenende,

Fußball, Kaugummi, Bahnhof, mitbringen, tragen, Schuhe, Gepäck, Bier, Politik. She stopped

after the 10th

word was discovered and moved on to the second activity. She recognized the

words from the word list she had studied, understood all the seven sentences and matched the

pictures with the sentences without any problem.

In the third activity – writing about a typical Canadian, Sarah wrote down the following

words in the circles:

das Hockey

das Französisch

das Bier

freundlich

friedlich

die Pommes frites

She thought of hockey (das Hockey) immediately. Then she wanted to add French to the circles,

but she could not remember the German equivalent das Französisch which she had learned in

Chapter Two of Vorsprung, and needed to look it up in the dictionary. The third word she put

171

into the circle is das Bier which she had studied shortly beforehand. The fourth word she wrote

down was freundlich (friendly). Then, the word friendly links to the word peaceful (friedlich).

However, she did not know how to say peaceful in German and found it in the dictionary.

Finally, she wanted to add the fast food poutine to the circles, but the dictionary did not contain

this word. So she changed poutine to French fries and found the translation die Pommes frites

in the dictionary.

In the fourth activity, she used the six words and wrote a very short text as follows:

Die Kanadier sind freundlich und friedlich.

Sie spielen Hockey gerne und sie trinken das Bier.

Sie sprechen Französisch und sie isst die Pommes frites.

Her performance in the two productive activities showed that she remembered the noun

das Bier and the verb essen. In general, she was able to conjugate most of the verbs correctly.

The only verb that she did not conjugate correctly was essen. The other problem was the use of

definite articles. She had difficulty in knowing whether she should add the definite article to

the noun or not. For instance, when she was writing the sentence “Sie spielen Hockey gerne

und sie trinken das Bier,” she was hesitant about adding the article das for Bier. But she

decided to write it. It showed that knowing the grammatical gender of nouns is not sufficient.

Knowing when to use it and when not to use it is also important.

6.1.2.3 Analysis of Sarah‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

Overall, Sarah reported in the questionnaires and interviews that, when she encountered

unfamiliar words, she usually consulted the Wortschatz (vocabulary list) section at the end of

each textbook chapter, or the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. In

172

addition, she reported that she took notes in class, did homework assigned by the course

instructor, and made a word list to study especially for quizzes or exams. Oral repetition was

the primary strategy she used to memorize word meaning, spelling, and the gender of nouns.

She also tried to pronounce words in German correctly to assist memorizing word spelling.

Spelling the letters aloud (e.g., “T-I-S-C-H”) was also very commonly used to memorize word

spelling. Like Anna, she also tested herself after she studied the words.

In general, for word meaning discovery and word consolidation, the strategies reported

in the questionnaires and interviews is similar to the strategies identified in Sarah‟s think-aloud

protocols. During the word list study session, Sarah recognized the similarity in spelling and/or

sound between the target word and its English equivalent and then inferred the meaning. Even

when she was very certain about her inferences, she always consulted the reference materials to

confirm them. The reference source she used during the think-aloud protocols was the German-

English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. She also translated the phrases literally. Finally,

to consolidate the lexical items on the word list, Sarah took notes and wrote the English

equivalents next to the German target words on an extra piece of paper. Then she made a word

list to study and grouped words together based on the parts of speech and on the gender. She

repeated orally, wrote repeatedly, and spelled the letters of words aloud. She memorized the

definite article together with the noun. Finally, she tested herself many times until she was

positive that she had accurately remembered all the meanings, spelling and the grammatical

gender of the nouns. Table 6.2 below summarizes the vocabulary learning strategies reported

by Sarah as well as actually used strategies during her think-aloud protocols.

173

Table 6.2. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Sarah.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Making a word list to study

Consulting e-dictionary (but rarely)


Consulting the German-English vocabulary

Reviewing notes

Reviewing word lists

Oral repetition

Spelling the letters aloud repeatedly


spelling


Testing herself


Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes



German word and its equivalent in English or other languages (


Confirming the result of guessing by consulting the reference

materials

Consulting the German-English vocabulary at the end of the

textbook

Translating a phrase literally

Reviewing notes

Reviewing word lists

Grouping words (i.e., nouns) together by gender

Grouping words together by parts of speech

Oral repetition

Written repetition


Orally repeating the definite article with the noun together

Testing herself

Sarah is to a certain degree similar to Anna. I would also characterize her way of

studying vocabulary learning as organized and structured. These two characteristics also shows

in the way how she organized her course notes, created the word list, and tested herself

repeatedly until she was sure that all the target words, including their spelling and meanings,

174

are well stored in her brain. However, she also mentioned that after the exams or quizzes, she

did not usually keep the lists and study them again. It seems to indicate that her way of

studying is extremely exam-oriented, although she said that fulfilling the language requirement

was not the only reason for her to take the GER 101. She made the word list because she

needed to remember the words to pass exams, and that was the main and only reason.

Another characteristic of Sarah‟s vocabulary learning processes is that she did not like

to guess. Making sure and being certain of information is important for her. This is shown, on

the one hand, in the fact that she quizzed herself repeatedly; on the other hand, it is shown in

that, even when she recognized the words that look or sound similar to their English

equivalents (e.g., Politik, Wochenende, Bier), she still consulted the textbook to make sure she

was right. In the interviews, she also admitted that she preferred to know things for sure than to

assume, and that she did not like to take a chance. Hence, it is not a surprise that, in the

questionnaires and interviews, she did not report that she used the strategy “guessing from the

context” to infer meaning of unknown words, and that she did not use it in the word list study

session either.

The most unique part of Sarah‟s memorization processes is that she used a variety of

repetition strategies (i.e., oral repetition, written repetition, spelling the letters aloud

repetitively, orally repeating the definite article with the noun together). Not like any other

participant, she spelled out loud each letter of the word repeatedly to memorize the spelling of

German words. In the quiz, she did not make any mistake in spelling. It seems that her unique

strategy works well for her. However, I believe that the other two consolidation strategies that

she applied, i.e., “written repetition” and “testing herself”, are also helpful to memorize the

175

word spelling. When she quizzed herself, she practiced writing the words repeatedly as well.

This is also a way of memory reinforcement.

To sum up, taking notes, making a word list out of the notes, and studying the word list

that she made with primarily repetition strategies form the model of Sarah‟s vocabulary

learning processes. For a language learner like Sarah who believes that repetition works best

for her and does not like to be forced to adopt other learning strategies, it is helpful to provide

information about other memorization strategies and offer training opportunities for these

strategies.

6.1.3 Kevin



Kevin was a 19-year-old first-year University of Waterloo student. He would like to

major in drama. He is a very experienced performer of the traditional Irish River Dance. He

was born and grew up in a small town near Kitchener, Ontario. English is his L1. He had very

unique educational experiences. He went to the public elementary school, and then was home-

schooled between ages 10 and 15 (i.e., between Grade 5 and Grade 10), taught by his own

parents and by their friends who also appreciated the idea of home schooling. Then he returned

to the public education system and finished the last two years of high school. He learned

French for five years: four years at the elementary school and one year with his father during

the home schooling period. But he evaluated his French proficiency as poor and himself as a

weak language learner. He had also been learning sign language on his own. He thought it was

very interesting and might be helpful for being a good teacher in the future. He decided to take

176

GER 101 because he was interested in the language itself and the German culture. Also he

knew that many famous modern theatre playwrights came from Germany or originated from

German culture. He believed that learning German would help him with his studies in drama as

well.


Kevin said that he was not scared of speaking German. He did not feel uncomfortable

when the instructor called on him to answer questions in German. However, he did not often

volunteer to answer the instructor‟s questions. He liked to work in a group in the language

classroom as well as in other courses. Because he was very interested in theatre and dancing,

and had performed on stage for years, Kevin enjoyed working with people in a group. Yet, for

quizzes or tests, he usually studied alone because then he could concentrate better on the study

material. He usually studied only before quizzes and exams. After the tests, if he was very

interested in that test material, and more importantly, if he had time, he would review his

mistakes in the tests and the course materials. But if he did not like the course, he usually just

forgot about the test results and moved on.

Kevin occasionally watched German movies with English subtitles. He said that he

even repeated the dialogue after the actors occasionally. But he explained that he did so not

because he wanted to remember or learn any words from the movie; it was just an instinct and

spontaneous reaction for him because he studies drama. Hence, movies were not his primary

tool for learning German. The primary resources of learning German were the course and the

textbook. He said he enjoyed the GER 101 course very much. He liked the instructor, the

classmates and the class atmosphere. The instructor was a very important factor for him to be

177

motivated for the course. He also tried to listen to the instructor‟s pronunciation carefully and

mimic how he pronounced German words.

Kevin was fully aware that vocabulary is very important in learning a foreign language,

especially when one wants to use the foreign language in a conversation. He said, “You can

just tell somebody that your German is not very good and stream a poor sentence together with

right vocabulary; they can probably still understand what you are saying” (Kevin, Interview 2,

13-16). He spent approximately one hour per week studying German outside of class. Although

he was aware of the importance of vocabulary, he also pointed out that he usually paid more

attention to grammar while studying, because he believed he had much more difficulty learning

grammar than vocabulary.

Kevin explained in the interview why German vocabulary had not been very hard for

him: “A lot of [German] vocabulary simply sounds similar [to English], you know, like

lecturer and Lehrer, they really sound similar to me” (Kevin, Interview 2, 75-77). That is to

say, when the German target word sounds similar to its English equivalent, it is much easier for

him to remember. He also said that this was also true of his experience learning French

vocabulary previously. He still remembered some colors in French very well because they

sound very similar to their English equivalents to him. Nevertheless, he also knew that not all

German vocabulary sounds similar to the equivalent English words. When he studied German

words that sound nowhere close to the English equivalents, he still tried to make a phonetic

connection between them.

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Kevin

178

When encountering unknown words, Kevin said that he usually tried to guess the

meaning from the context. He also used the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of each

chapter or consulted the German-English vocabulary in the reference section at the end of the

textbook to discover the meanings of unknown words.

Kevin revealed that he usually took notes in the classroom when the instructor

introduced new German words. Unlike Anna or Sarah, who wrote the German words and their

English equivalents in two columns next to each other, Kevin wrote the German words across

the sheet, and then, underneath the German words, he wrote down the English translations.

Usually, only before the quizzes or exams, he would read through his notes. He revealed that,

most of the time, he read them only once or twice the same way that he read anything. “I don‟t

like to read the same word or the same sentence over and over again; I get bored,” explained

Kevin (Kevin, Interview 2, 172-174).

He also mentioned that if he had the opportunity to say the words out loud to someone

while he was reviewing the material or immediately after he encountered the words, he could

remember the words much better than if he only read them once or twice. For example, he

described that, one day while he was memorizing the vocabulary for the time of the day in

German (e.g., Viertel nach/vor neun, halb zehn) at home, he rehearsed those words with his

sister although she did not understand German at all.

In reference to memorizing the spelling of a German word, he admitted that he always

had a hard time with spelling, not only in German, but also in English, his L1. He stated, “I‟ve

never been good in spelling, in general. [...] Especially when the words sound very similar,

then I got confused” (Kevin, Interview 2, 248-257). In order to retain the spelling, he usually

read the words a couple of times, similar to the way in which he memorized the meanings of

179

the words as described above. He also tried to write the words on a piece of paper, but he

revealed that this was not a consistent practice.

As for memorizing the gender of German nouns, Kevin had a unique way to remember

that the article der is masculine and die is feminine. He revealed that, for him, some words just

sound more masculine or feminine than the others. Even the definite articles themselves,

especially der and die, were sounds of different pitch and thus sounded more masculine or

feminine. He explained, “die is just a higher pitch sound, and der is a little bit „harsher‟ and

sounds more masculine” (Kevin, Interview 2, 267-268). But how did he connect das to neuter?

Did it sound “neuter” to him? He explained that he knew das is neuter before he came to the

class, so he did not have any difficulty remembering that and did not confuse it with the other

two articles. Hence, in order to memorize the gender of German nouns, he studied the definite

article with the noun together. Take the noun Tisch as an example, he did not just memorize

Tisch but der Tisch. Through the “harsher” sound der, he remembered that Tisch is masculine.

In terms of using the words after studying them, Kevin said that he did homework

assigned by the course instructor and tried to incorporate the learned words in the assignment.

Sometimes, when he had opportunities, he tried to say one or two simple words or phrases in

German. For instance, he once said Entschuldigung to the German course instructor to

apologize for attending the class late.


Vocabulary learning strategies used by Kevin in the word list study session

Kevin used the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook as the primary

reference tool to find the meanings for words that he did not know. Among the 22 lexical items

180

on the word list, he found the following words in the German-English vocabulary without

difficulty: essen, Bahnhof, Schweinefleisch, Kaugummi, tragen, Schuhe, mitbringen, fernsehen,

Wochenende, vielleicht.

He had trouble finding Gepäck in the German-English vocabulary, although the word is

listed there. He skipped it and wrote it in the margin of a blank paper to remind himself he had

not yet found its meaning. At a later point, he turned to the Collins Dictionary and finally

discovered the meaning of Gepäck there.

It is also worth mentioning how Kevin dealt with the meanings of some words, such as

wahrscheinlich, Mund, and Politik. With these three words, Kevin was fairly confident of his

memory or inference. For instance, as he encountered wahrscheinlich on the word list, he said

immediately, “I think that is a sneeze if I remember properly” (Kevin, TAP, 27). Actually, at a

later point, as he reviewed the word list, he corrected himself and said that “I guess it is just

sneeze, not a sneeze” (Kevin, TAP, 48). I asked him after the think-aloud protocols why he

recalled wahrscheinlich as a sneeze or sneeze, but he could not explain where this idea came

from.

When he saw der Mund, he said, “der Mund is the moon, I believe” (Kevin, TAP, 87).

He inferred the meaning of Mund = moon obviously based on the sound similarity between the

two words. Unfortunately, the similarity led to a mistake here.

Further, as to the noun die Politik, a word that looks and sounds fairly similar to its

English equivalent (i.e., politics), Kevin surprisingly did not infer the meaning correctly either.

He said, “die Politik is a politician, but a female politician, I suppose” (Kevin, TAP, 178-179).

I assume that his erroneous inference is probably influenced by the definite article die.

181

These errors could have been easily corrected if Kevin used the reference materials (i.e.,

the textbook or the dictionary) to double check the meanings. But he did not. However, I

noticed that Kevin did double check the meanings occasionally, such as in the case of

Schweinefleisch. As he saw this noun, he recalled that it means pork in English. Although he

was right this time, he said, “I will double check it because I might be wrong” (Kevin, TAP,

33-34). In other words, Kevin employed the confirmation strategy inconsistently.

The examples above also demonstrate that Kevin‟s inference of word meaning is

mainly based upon the similarities in spelling and/or sound between German and English.

Another example was evident in Kevin‟s response to the verb fernsehen. As described above,

Kevin discovered in the German-English vocabulary that fernsehen is to watch TV. He also

saw on the word list the conjugation of fernsehen in third person singular (i.e., er sieht fern)

and said, “so once again, this is one of those verbs that split up in a sentence” (Kevin, TAP,

156-157). He continued with his word analysis and stated, “I am sure sehen must be watching

and fern is television. […] I assume sehen is watch because that is similar to the word see, so

fern must be television” (Kevin, TAP, 169-177). Again, he believed sehen is to see because

they sounded similar to him.

In addition, Kevin had great difficulties with the three phrases on the word list. With

verstehen von etwas, he first referred to the German-English vocabulary but saw the word

Verstand which is translated as reason, logic. He did not see the verb verstehen, which is listed

several words after Verstand. Next, he thought verstehen is a separable verb. He split the prefix

ver from stehen and said, “stehen is to stay, I think. I think it is, or I hope it is” (Kevin, TAP,

265-266) and “I am sure it‟s one of the verbs that we can split up and be stehen Sie ver or

something similar to that” (Kevin, TAP, 312-313). Then he tried to discover what etwas means.

182

He referred to the German-English vocabulary and learned it means somewhat. Then he

interpreted it, “so to think and understand somewhat […], verstehen von etwas” (Kevin, TAP,

276-277). I notice that he suddenly stated that verstehen is to think, to understand. He did not

say to stay somewhat as he just assumed for stehen. It seemed that he suddenly “remember” the

meaning of verstehen.

Later on, he returned to the phrase and wanted to check the verb verstehen in the

German-English vocabulary again. He said, verstehen von etwas is “to understand only

somewhat. I should be sure of that before I go on” (Kevin, TAP, 301-303). At this moment, it

seemed that he was going to refer to one of the reference materials, but then he suddenly

changed his mind and decided to simply write verstehen on the extra sheet besides the word

Gepäck to remind himself he needed to go back to this word. Minutes later, as he finally

returned to the word verstehen, he referred to the print dictionary and discovered that it means

to understand. He said, “I‟ve seen this one before. Yeah, I think it was understand before. Oh

it is good to know that I … I infer the right thing from root words. So verstehen von etwas is to

almost understand” (Kevin, TAP, 393-397). As one can see, Kevin‟s translation of verstehen

von etwas changes repeatedly, from to think and understand somewhat to to understand only

somewhat, and finally to to almost understand. He spent much time on this phrase but did not

get it right.

Kevin had difficulties finding the meaning of halten von etwas as well. As he saw the

phrase on the word list, he said, “It‟ll be easy to say that halten in German and halt in English

are similar. I hope they are … but that will only mean to halt somewhat which simply doesn‟t

make sense” (Kevin, TAP, 315-318). Hence, he wanted to find the verb halten in the German-

English vocabulary. Surprisingly, he saw the word halt (translated as just), not halten which is

183

listed immediately below halt. He moved on to translate the whole phrase and said, “halt, just,

so just understand. […] So verstehen von etwas is to understand a little bit, halten von etwas is

just understand” (Kevin, TAP, 323-327).

Finally, the idiom nur Bahnhof verstehen: As he saw the idiom, he did not recall the

meaning of the noun Bahnhof. He referred to the German-English vocabulary and then

remembered it means train station. However, he did not notice Bahnhof verstehen is cited

immediately under the entry Bahnhof. He then translated the phrase as almost near the train

station. He seemed to believe that nur means near, probably because both words start with N

and end in R, and sound slightly similar. Later on, after he discovered verstehen means to

understand in the Collins Dictionary, he decided that nur Bahnhof verstehen is to understand

the train station. However, at the end of the word list study session, he changed the translation

again. He said, “nur Bahnhof verstehen means no where close to the train station” (Kevin,

TAP, 433-434).

Unlike Anna and Sarah, who generally memorized the words on the list after they had

worked through the list and had discovered the meaning of all the words, Kevin started

memorizing while he was still in the process of discovering the meanings, primarily by

repeating the words orally. After he discovered the meaning of a word (accurately or not), he

occasionally went back to the top of the list, and orally repeated each word, from essen to the

words he had just encountered. When repeating, he said the German word and its English

equivalent together, for instance, “essen, to eat; der Bahnhof, train station.” Certainly, because

he did not find the correct meanings for some words, he memorized the wrong translation as

well, such as “wahrscheinlich, sneeze” or “der Mund, the moon.”

184

Kevin also tried to make sound (phonetic) connections. For example, he thought that

the pronunciation of Bahnhof sounds like train station; or as described above, he remarked that

the verb sehen sounds like see.

Like Anna, Kevin also memorized the word pair Gepäck – luggage by making a

phonetic and semantic connection between the two words. He said, “Gepäck, luggage.

Luggage for pack. Gepäck, pack, luggage, backpack. Gepäck is luggage” (Kevin, TAP, 368-

372). Here, the words pack and backpack play the role of a mediator. Both words share to a

certain extent sound and spelling similarities with Gepäck, and are also semantically related to

luggage.

As described in the previous section, he believed that Politik means a female politician.

In order to remember it, he also made connections between Politik and a female politician by

thinking of an example of a female politician. He remarked, “I should think of a female

politician like. […] Hillary Clinton” (Kevin, TAP, 181-182).

Kevin took notes on an extra sheet (see Figure 6.8 below) for multiple purposes. First

of all, he wrote a couple of words on the margin of the paper to remind himself that he had not

discovered their meaning and he needed to come back to these words (e.g., Gepäck, verstehen

as mentioned above). Secondly, he wrote several German words to remember how they are

spelled, such as Schweinefleisch, wahrscheinlich, bleiben, tragen, and lächeln because there is

the Umlaut102

ä in it. However, he did not particularly practice writing the German words (i.e.,

written repetition). Third, like Anna, Kevin also noted that mitbringen and fernsehen are

separable verbs. In order to remind himself that they are separable, he wrote these two verbs in

the notes and added a dot between fern and sehen and between mit and bringen.

102

Kevin called the Umlaut “üpsilon.” I believe he confused its pronunciation with that of the letter y.

185

Figure 6.8. An illustration of Kevin‟s notes during the think-aloud protocols.

In addition to writing down the verb mitbringen on the sheet of notes and putting a dot

between mit and bringen, Kevin also created the imperative sentence “Bringen Sie mit!” to

remember the meaning of mitbringen and that it is a separate verb.

Kevin had a unique way to remember the word Kaugummi: to memorize Kaugummi is

chewing gum, he exaggeratedly moved his mouth slowly as if he was actually chewing

something in his mouth and said “Kaugummi” by lengthening the sound of the diphthong au.

Finally, he tried to make sense of the gender of the nouns by finding a reason why the

word is masculine, feminine or neuter. For instance, to remember that Schweinefleisch is neuter,

he said that “das Schweinefleisch, it‟s das, neuter, because the pork is dead, doesn‟t have a

gender” (Kevin, TAP, 226-227). As for der Mund, which he mistakenly thought it means the

moon, he remarked that the moon is masculine, “because the first one on the moon is a man”

(Kevin, TAP, 237). Also, Fußball is masculine because football is a masculine sport.

Gepäck verstehen

das Schweinefleisch

pork

wahrscheinlich (sneeze) Kaugummi

(chewing gum)

bleiben

lächeln

tragen fern•sehen

Schuhe carry mit•bringen watch TV

(shoe)

die Politik

das Wochenende

the weekend

vielleicht

perhaps nur Bahnhof verstehen

186

Results of the quiz

Kevin‟s quiz result was poor. He answered only the following words correctly:

to eat:

to hike/go hiking:

weekend:

essen

wandern

das Wochenende

He could not recall the following words in German and did not write anything in the

blanks: to wear, probably, to smile, to think of, mouth. It is no surprise that he could not answer

these questions. After all, he only knew tragen as to carry, and mistakenly believed lächeln is

to laugh, halten von etwas means just to understand, and der Mund is the moon.

He knew the German words for chewing gum, luggage, and to stay. However, he made

some spelling mistakes. He did not capitalize the nouns (i.e., he wrote: der kaugummi, das

gepäck), although he knew nouns in German always begin with a capital letter. As for the verb

to stay, he wrote bleibe instead of bleiben.

He was confused by the questions probably, to understand nothing, to bring along. He

wrote:

It is not surprising either that he did not know the German words for probably and to

understand nothing, because, as described above, he thought wahrscheinlich (probably) means

sneeze, and nur Bahnhof verstehen (to understand nothing) means nowhere close to the train

station. However, it is surprising that he did not recall mitbringen for to bring along, since he

wrote it down to remember the spelling, added a dot between mit and bringen to remember it is

separable verb, and even used it in a sentence.

probably:

to understand nothing:

to bring along:

verstehen

verstate von etwas

mitwoch

187


In the first activity – the word chart – Kevin first went through the chart horizontally

and then vertically. He recognized the following 12 words: Wochenende, Schuhe, Politik, Bier,

Schweinefleisch, Kaugummi, Fernsehen, mitbringen, wandern, wahrscheinlich, verstehen,

bleiben. He also remembered the meaning of these words, including wahrscheinlich as sneeze

and Politik as female politician.

In the second activity, he had difficulties understanding the following two sentences:

Das kleine Mädchen trägt ein T-Shirt und Shorts.

Der Junge sieht den ganzen Tag nur fern.

He did not know the meanings of das kleine Mädchen and of trägt in the first sentence.

However, the words T-Shirt and Shorts helped him find the matched picture. As he

encountered the second sentence for the first time, he could not understand it and decided to

skip and come back to it at the end. Later, he found the matching picture because it was the

only one that had not been picked yet. Then he recognized the word fern and said, “oh, fern,

fern is TV, I should remember that” (Kevin, TAP, 579).

In the third activity, Kevin wrote down the following words in the circles:

der typischer Kanadier trinken keine gut bier gern

keine fußball gerne

ist Deutsch, Englisch, Polisch

Both parents work

habe klein Familie

liebe hübsch oder schöne sie

He first thought about what a typical Canadian likes to drink. He recalled the word beer

immediately. He said, “I wanna say beer because it is one of the words that I just memorized. I

want to say they like bad beer” (Kevin, TAP, 585-587). But he didn‟t know how to say bad in

German, thus, he changed “they like bad beer” to “they don‟t like good beer,” and added der

188

typischer Kanadier trinken keine gut bier gern to the first circle. Next, he thought about sports

and added keine fußball gerne. Then, he moved on to the aspect of origins. He said, “typical

Canadian comes from Europe actually” (Kevin, TAP, 617). But he didn‟t know how to say

Europe in German, so he decided to list a few countries. But he could not remember the names

of the European countries. Then he recalled that he had learned the names of people from the

European countries. So he wrote down Deutsch, Englisch, Polisch in another circle. Next, he

wanted to say “both parents work,” but again, he didn‟t know how to translate that into

German. So he simply added the phrase in English. Then, he wanted to express that typical

Canadians have small families. He tried to recall the word small in German, but he couldn‟t.

He said, “Oh shoot! That French word is coming, I wanna say petite but it is not” (Kevin, TAP,

641-642). Then he recalled many other adjectives. He said, “schlang is skinny, groß is large,

dick is chubby. What is small?” (Kevin, TAP, 643-647) He referred to the textbook and found

the word klein in Chapter One. He then wrote down habe klein familie in the next circle.

Finally, he wanted to say “typical Canadians love beautiful, good looking people.” Instead of

looking up the German equivalent of people, he wrote the pronoun sie which, he explained,

refers to “the plural of you” (Kevin, TAP, 659).

In the fourth activity, Kevin wrote the following sentences:

der typischer Kanadier keine trinken gut bier gerne.

die typische Kanaderin spielen fußball nicht gern.

es ist halt Deutsch, Englisch, oder Polisch…

der typischer Kanadier habe klein Familie.

Lieben hübsch oder schön Menschen.

189

In the fourth sentence above, Kevin used halt to mean just, as he believed that halten von etwas

means just to understand. He said, “Halt is just. I could say halt, it is just Polish or English.

Yeah, it works” (Kevin, TAP, 703-705). When he was writing down the last sentence, he

decided to find out the German word for people. He looked it up in the dictionary and saw that

it is translated as Menschen. However, the subject of this sentence was missing.

To summarize, Kevin‟s performance in the two productive activities showed that he

was extremely weak in many aspects of word knowledge, especially in spelling (written form)

and in using the words in the context. He did not capitalize the first words of the sentences. He

did not capitalize Bier and Fußball. Verb conjugations seemed to be a problem for him as well.

Also, he relied strongly on literal translation when he was asked to write full sentences. This

was similar to the way he dealt with discovering the meaning of the three phrases in the word

list.

6.1.3.3 Analysis of Kevin‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

In the interviews and questionnaires, Kevin stated that, in order to discover meanings of

unknown words, he usually guessed from the context or consulted the textbook Vorsprung, for

example, the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of each textbook chapter or the German-

English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. He usually took notes in class, and did home

work assigned by the course instructor; before quizzes or exams, he reviewed the notes by

reading them through once or twice. Sometimes, he said the words out loud to someone who

might not understand German at all, or to the course instructor. He was sensitive to the sound

of words. He listened to the instructor‟s pronunciation carefully and studied the pitch of the

190

definite article der and die, and memorized the definite article with the noun together. Written

repetition was employed occasionally to memorize the spelling of words.

During the word list study session, in order to discover the meanings of words, Kevin

very often inferred from the similarity in spelling and/or sound. He also consulted the textbook

German-English vocabulary and the print dictionary. He confirmed the result of guessing by

consulting the reference materials, but not consistently. Very often, he translated the phrases

literally word for word. Further, he repeated orally, made a sound and/or meaning connection

(e.g., Bahnhof sounds like train station; sehen sounds like to see; Gepäck – pack – backpack –

luggage), connected the word to a real figure (die Politik – female politician – Hillary Clinton).

He also took notes and wrote the English equivalents underneath the German target words. He

made a visual indication of the separability of the affix and roots (mitbringen, fernsehen), and

used physical action to emphasize the sound and meaning of the word (e.g., Kaugummi). He

placed the new word in a sentence (e.g., “Bringen Sie mit!”). Finally, for remembering the

gender of the nouns, he made sense of the gender of nouns by finding a reason for why the

word is masculine, feminine or neuter. Table 6.3 below summarizes the vocabulary learning

strategies reported by Kevin as well as actually used strategies during the think-aloud protocols.

Table 6.3. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Kevin.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes




textbook

Reviewing notes

Written repetition


Studying the symbolic volume of the sound


Interacting with the course instructor or German native speakers

Saying the words in German to someone who may not understand

191

German at all


Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes


German word and its equivalent in English or other languages

(cognates or borrowing)


materials



textbook

Translating a phrase/sentence literally

Making his own translation for the phrase

Reviewing notes


Connecting the word to a real figure


Making sense of the gender of nouns by inventing a reason for

why the word is masculine, feminine or neuter

Oral repetition


Making visual indication of the separability of the affixes and

roots

Acting out the words

The most noticeable characteristic of Kevin‟s vocabulary learning processes shows in

the way he inferred meaning of unknown words. He believed that many German words sound

very similar to their English equivalents. Hence, he relied mainly on the similarities in spelling

and/or sound between German and English to infer the meaning of new German words and

made mistakes (e.g., der Mund = the moon; nur = near; die Politik = female politician). The

erroneous inferences could be corrected if he had double checked them in the reference

materials. However, although he did so, the problem is that he did it only occasionally, not

consistently. Hence, in my opinion, to a language learner like Kevin, it is crucial to stress that

although some German words do look or sound similar to their equivalents in English, it is not

192

always the case. The term “false friends” needs to be introduced at the early stage and the

importance of comfirming the result of inferencing consistently should be emphasized.

Like Anna and Sarah, Kevin also made notes in the word list study session. However,

his notes looked very different from the notes made by Anna and Sarah who wrote the German

target words and their English equivalents in the form of word pair. It is interesting to note that

he wrote down the English translations only for some German words. Among the 13 German

lexical items he wrote on the sheet of notes, only eight of them were written together with their

English equivalents (mostly underneath); the other five were not. The words were written

randomly on the page like a simple memo. Although Kevin‟s way of organizing words in the

notes was different from that of Anna and Sarah, his notes may very well represent some order

or visual order that Kevin found helpful for memory.

Like Anna, Kevin also used a variety of vocabulary learning strategies to consolidate

the word list (i.e., Anna used 10, Kevin used nine consolidation strategies). However, his quiz

results were poor. It indicates that applying more strategies does not necessarily equal a better

learning outcome. How and how well the strategies are applied also plays a role.

Lastly, Kevin‟s uniqueness shows in some of the vocabulary learning strategies he used

to remember German vocabulary. He is the only participant who said that the German

grammatical articles der and die have a different “pitch” which helped him to remember that

der is the masculine article and die the feminine. He is also the only participant who acted out

the noun Kaugummi when memorizing it. Finally, he is the only participant who said that he

liked to practice saying German to someone even when this person did not understand German

at all. I believe that the use of these three unique strategies probably has to do with his

background as an experienced performer of the traditional Irish River Dance and as a student

193

with a drama major. The training in dancing to music, in performing and acting along the years

makes it natural to him to pay attention the symbolic volume of sounds, to act out the words,

and to say them aloud to people.

6.1.4 Kenny



Kenny was a 20-year-old first year student. He would like to major in English literature.

He was born and grew up in the Kitchener-Waterloo (K-W) region. English is his L1. He had

learned French for nine years at the elementary and high school levels. He evaluated his French

proficiency as excellent/good and considers himself an above-average language learner. He

decided to take GER 101, not only because he needed to fulfill the language requirement, but

also because he was interested in the language and the German culture.


Based on my course observation and conversation during the interviews, my impression

was that Kenny was an extroverted, relaxed, and easy-going student. He came to the German

class fairly regularly,103

enjoyed having conversations with his classmates and was active in the

German class. He did not mind being in the spotlight and engaged enthusiastically in the

classroom activities.

In his opinion, learning at least one foreign language was important for global

communication: “Basically in the world today, there are so many people; everyone speaks

something different; we have to keep up with that” (Kenny, Interview 1, 90-91). However, he

103

Unfortunately, in the second half of the Fall term 2006, he became ill and missed many classes.

194

did not think it is so crucial to be proficient in German, “because,” he explained, “it [German]

is not that important compared to other languages like French which is secondary in this

country or Spanish which has a big language population” (Kenny, Interview 1, 103-105).

Nevertheless, in interviews, Kenny stated that he enjoyed the GER 101 course very

much, mostly because he liked the instructor and the way he taught. The lessons were relaxing

and interesting to him: “He teaches in a way that makes it interesting and fun to actually learn

it” (Kenny, Interview 1, 108-110). Kenny also explicitly stated that he prefers “people who are

very relaxed and laid back about how they teach. They don‟t specifically try to beat it in you

and say „you need to know this, this is what you are doing, do this‟. I like a more relaxed

environment, communal type of things, not just the teacher is in the front and you are in the

seats” (Kenny, Interview 1, 120-126). He regarded it as an advantage that the instructor was

fairly young. He explained, “Because he is in the same age group so it is very easy to learn

from him and it is sort of taking him as a friend instead of as a professor” (Kenny, Interview 1,

264-266).

In the same interview, Kenny emphasized the importance of the course instructor for

his learning process. If he was not fond of the instructor, he did not want to make an effort in

the course at all: “I get very turned off from it; it disturbs me from really focusing on it”

(Kenny, Interview 1, 206-207). In other words, his motivation for learning was highly

dependent on the degree of how much he liked the course instructor. The course instructor was

also the source for him to learn the pronunciation of German words. He stated that hearing the

words pronounced correctly by the instructor a few times helped him to remember how to

pronounce the word.

195

Although he was an outgoing person and liked “communal type of things,” he preferred

to study alone without distraction. In addition, he did not enjoy doing group work at all

because, as he explained, “unfortunately, most of the time, I usually get stuck doing the work”

(Kenny, Interview 1, 150-151). If he had to finish an assignment or project with a group, he

preferred to select his own group members rather than having the instructor randomly assign

him to a group. He stated, “I prefer to choose my own partners because I know who they are

and I know pretty much from their class participation how they work, and if they are like me,

then I know we are going to get along” (Kenny, Interview 1, 170-174).

Although vocabulary had been a neglected aspect of his past language learning

experience, Kenny was aware of its significance. He stated that without vocabulary, “there is

no language” (Kenny, Interview 2, 9).

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Kenny

Kenny said that he took notes in class and studied regularly. He spent approximately

two to three hours per week studying German. To prepare for quizzes or exams, he often

studied the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of each of the chapters in the textbook.

Kenny stated that when he encountered words that he did not know, he usually first

tried to guess the meaning of an unknown word from the context. Only when the context did

not provide enough information did he take another step, such as consulting the textbook, his

course notes or his print dictionary. He also used these reference materials when he needed to

find words in German to finish homework, such as writing a short essay, or when he was not

certain how to spell a word properly. He did not use an online dictionary at all. Sometimes, if

the instructor was around, he would also ask the instructor for meaning clarification.

196

For memorizing the word meanings, Kenny indicated that he did not a have specific

method besides repetition, because it is the only method he knew. Nevertheless, in addition to

oral repetition, he emphasized that seeing the words (i.e., the German target word and its

equivalent in English) while repeating them vocally was very important for him. Hence, seeing

them and hearing them by pronouncing them out loud several times worked best for him. He

said, “I usually have trouble with learning either way by itself. I cannot just learn by seeing it

or just by hearing it. I usually need both” (Kenny, Interview 2, 72-74). Hence, when he studied

the German word Tisch for instance, he looked at the target word as well as the English

translation (table/desk) and repeated orally “Tisch, table” as a unit a few times.

He claimed that remembering word meanings had not been difficult for him. He wrote

in the questionnaire, “I just have a decent memory.” He explained that it was easy especially

when the German word looks similar to its equivalent in English, or when he could connect the

German word to French, the language he was very familiar with. In the latter case, he used the

French word as a mediator between the target word and its English translation.

However, he was not so confident concerning memorization of word spelling. He

admitted in the questionnaire that spelling was “probably the only thing that I‟m a little slow at

doing.” He explained the difficulty with spelling in the interview: “Usually when I try to spell

words, I‟ll sound them out. But in German, there are so many silent letters, they make spelling

very difficult” (Kenny, Interview 2, 205-208). Taking the word Tisch (table/desk) as an

example once more, Kenny said that, when he heard the word Tisch, the pronounced [t I ∫] lead

him to spell the word as Tish instead of Tisch. In other words, being able to pronounce the

word accurately did not always lead him to the correct spelling. He forgot the letter C, because,

instead of regarding SCH as an inseparable unit for pronunciation, he only thought of SH, and

197

treated C as a silent letter which was easily ignored when spelling. He added that, sometimes,

seeing the same German word many times helped him to retain the spelling in his mind. But

merely hearing or orally repeating the word numerous times did not work well. This again

indicated that he needed to see, to hear or to say the words for a better memory.

As for using the German words, Kenny stated that he tried to use the words in the

assignments as well as in everyday conversation. He chatted to one of the classmates on MSN

Messenger, and they tried to incorporate simple German words in their messages. For example,

instead of saying very good, they used sehr gut when giving each other compliments.


Vocabulary learning strategies used by Kenny in the word list study session

Kenny began the session of word list study with the first lexical item essen, and then

worked gradually through the list. In order to discover the meanings of unknown words on the

list, he relied greatly on the print dictionary he owns.104

He basically looked up each lexical

item there.

Even when he guessed the meaning of the word correctly, for instance, words that look

or sound similar to their English translations, such as Fußball, Bier, and Politik, he still

referred to the dictionary to ensure his inferences were correct.

Kenny had more difficulty discovering the meanings of the last three phrases on the list.

As he came across verstehen von etwas, he first looked up the word etwas in the dictionary and

found out that it means something. Next, he guessed verstehen von etwas may be an expression

(phrase). Thus, he further looked it up under verstehen and remarked that “it looks like it

means to know a bit or nothing about. Hm … to know nothing about or to know a bit” (Kenny,

104

Larousse Pocket Dictionary: German-English English-German. (2001). Paris: Larousse.

198

TAP, 267-269). He considered for a couple of seconds and decided to go with to know a bit

rather than to know nothing about.

As to halten von etwas, he assumed now that “von etwas is probably a bit” (Kenny,

TAP, 283). He moved on to look up halten in the dictionary and saw that it means to hold. He

remarked, “The sentence doesn‟t make sense … to hold a bit …” (Kenny, TAP, 289-290). He

continued looking for a translation for the phrase, but could not find it. Thus, he tried to

straighten out the meaning by making his own translation/interpretation. He said, “So, see if I

can get that … hold a bit … possibly means do not have a lot” (Kenny, TAP, 294-295).

For the idiom nur Bahnhof verstehen, Kenny also made his own translation. From

encountering the noun Bahnhof and the phrase verstehen von etwas previously, he recognized

that Bahnhof means train station, and verstehen means to know. He first looked up the whole

phrase under the dictionary entry Bahnhof without any result. Next, he looked it up under

verstehen but could not find it, either. Then he said, “So I am going to look at it separately.

Bahnhof verstehen, verstehen, to know. So maybe it means to know where the station is”

(Kenny, TAP, 324-327).

After discovering the meaning of a lexical item, Kenny always wrote its English

translation next to the German target word. Then he orally repeated the word pairs, for instance,

“essen, to eat.” Further, each time after he orally repeated the word pair, he always returned to

the top of the word list and repeated the preceding pairs. For instance, after he discovered

wahrscheinlich means probably, he wrote down probably beside wahrscheinlich, and repeated

wahrscheinlich, probably, he returned to the first word on the list and repeated the pair “essen,

to eat; Bahnhof, train station; wahrscheinlich, probably.” Hence, he reviewed the first word

pair (essen – to eat) the most times, and the last pair (nur Bahnhof verstehen – to know where

199

the station is) the least times. According to his own description (see below), when he reviewed

the words beginning at the top of the list, he sometimes only looked at the German words and

tried to recall the English translations without looking at the latter. I also noticed that he did not

repeat the definite article together with the noun. It seemed that he did not pay attention to the

gender aspect of the nouns at all.

Results of the quiz

Kenny performed very poorly in the quiz. Basically, he forgot all the words he had just

studied. As he was presented with the quiz, he stared at it for a couple of seconds and said, “I

am gonna be honest. Everything just left my mind. … Everything just left my mind, I am

completely blank” (Kenny, TAP, 345-350). I told him not to feel nervous. He responded, “I am

not nervous at all” (Kenny, TAP, 352). He tried to write down some words, but then he said

again, “All I am thinking of are French words […] I can‟t seem to place with the word even

though I repeated it several times without even looking at the word when I was repeating it. I

am drawing a complete blank, like I am really not even thinking of any words right now”

(Kenny, TAP, 357-369). He looked at the quiz again and tried to write some answers. As

results, he wrote down the following words:

train station:


weekend:

mouth:

bahnof

versehen von etwas

wochenende

mund

His answers showed that, first of all, he knew the German equivalents of weekend, and

mouth in German. However, he did not capitalize the nouns. Second, he did not write the

200

definite articles. I believe that he had neglected to write the article because he did not pay

attention to it during the previous study session and it was not registered in his memory.


In the first activity, Kenny recognized the following ten words: Wochenende, Schuhe,

mitbringen, Schweinefleisch, Politik, Fußball, Kaugummi, Gepäck, verstehen, Bahnhof. As he

saw Kaugummi, he said, “Kaugummi, chewing gum, that is the one I couldn‟t figure out”

(Kenny, TAP, 388-389). In the second activity, Kenny had difficulty finding out the matching

picture for these two sentences:

Das kleine Mädchen trägt ein T-Shirt und Shorts.

Der Junge sieht den ganzen Tag nur fern.

He was confused by the subjects das kleine Mädchen and der Junge. For the first sentence, he

knew it is about “somebody wearing T-shirt and shorts” (Kenny, TAP, 414). He believed it

referred to picture 7. However, when he read the second sentence, he said, “der Junge ...

somebody young” (Kenny, TAP, 418), he became uncertain and thought maybe the picture 7

did not match the first sentence but the second sentence. This uncertainty shows that he was

not familiar with the words das kleine Mädchen and der Junge, and he did not recognize the

verb fernsehen (sieht fern as in the second sentence) which he had studied briefly before this

activity.

For the third activity, Kenny wrote down the following words:

hut

Schweinefleisch

Eh?

Biber

hockey

Bier

201

skate

Iglu

First of all, he thought of touque and looked up the German equivalent in the dictionary, but

the word is not listed. He wondered whether it would be listed under the word hat. He saw hat

is translated as Hut, but did not see any word close to touque. So he decided to write hut in the

circle. Then he thought of bacon which is very common in Canada. But he could not find the

German word for bacon in the dictionary either. So he wrote Schweinefleisch (pork) which

bacon is made of. Next, he added the interjection eh in one circle since it is often said by

Canadians in the conversation. Then, the word beaver came to his mind. He found its

equivalent Biber in the dictionary. Then he added hockey and Bier. The word hockey led him to

the word skate, but he could not find the German equivalent of skate in the dictionary (though

it is there, see below). Finally, he thought of igloo and found its German translation Iglu in the

dictionary.

In the fourth activity, Kenny used the words from the third activity and wrote a short

text as follows:

Im Kanada, das typischer Kanadier spiele hockey und kleide Schlittschuh.

Er essen Schweinefleisch und trinke bier.

Er lebendig in ein Iglu mit ein Biber.

Er sagen “Eh?” und kleide ein hut.

With the first sentence, he wanted to say that “In Canada, a typical Canadian plays hockey and

wears skates.” He looked up the German equivalent for skate in the dictionary one more time.

This time, he found it – translated as Schlittschuh. Next, he looked for the verb to wear in

German in order to say wears skates. He found the translation Kleidung, which is a noun, and

he used it as a verb. He translated the whole sentence as “Im Kanada, das typischer Kanadier

202

spiele hockey und kleide Schlittschuh.” Next, he looked up the verb to eat in German and found

essen in the dictionary. He wrote the second sentence “Er essen schweinefleisch und trinke

bier.” Then, he wanted to say “He lives in an igloo with a beaver.” He looked up to live but

found live (as an adjective) – lebendig. Hence, he wrote “Er lebendig in ein Iglu mit ein Biber.”

Finally, he looked up the verb to say – sagen and formed the last sentence “Er sagen „Eh?‟ und

kleide ein hut.”

His performance in the two productive activities revealed that Kenny relied heavily on

word for word translation when he was asked to write sentences in German. He seemed to

think that a German sentence has the same structure as an English one. In addition, he had

great difficulties in using the dictionary and reading the dictionary entries. He usually picked

the first equivalent in the dictionary entry without noticing the part of speech (e.g., to wear vs.

Kleidung). Further, his performance confirmed that the grammatical gender of the German

nouns did not interest him. When he found the words he needed in the dictionary, and if it was

a noun, he only attended to the noun, not the definite article which usually appears with the

noun in the dictionary. Finally, the text also demonstrated that verb conjugation was not easy

for him. In other words, he could not use the words properly in context.

6.1.4.3 Analysis of Kenny‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

In the questionnaires and interviews, Kenny revealed that he usually tried to guess from

the context first, and if context was not of much help, then he referred to various reference

materials, such as the textbook, print dictionary, and his own notes from class. Further, in order

to remember German words, he looked at the words (the target word and its English equivalent)

and orally repeated them; he connected the word to words in a language other than German or

203

English, e.g., in French. Finally, he usually did the homework assigned by the instructor, and

sometimes, he used some simple German words and expressions with classmates in online

chatting. In general, he found memorizing German vocabulary not very difficult because he

was very confident in his memory.

During the word list study session, Kenny consulted his print dictionary, guessed based

on the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the target word and L1, confirmed the

results of guessing by consulting the dictionary, and finally, translated the phrase literally and

made his own translation when he could not find the phrases in the dictionary. He took notes

and wrote the English equivalents next to the German target words in the word list and orally

repeated the word pairs numerous times. Table 6.4 below summarizes the vocabulary learning

strategies reported by Kenny as well as actually used strategies in his think-aloud protocols.

Table 6.4. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Kenny.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes


Recognizing cognates or borrowing



Consulting the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook


Asking the instructor for meaning clarification

Reviewing notes

Oral repetition

Connecting the target German word to words in languages other than

German for consolidation (e.g., French)


Using some simple German words with classmates in online chatting


Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes and reviewing notes


Confirming the result of guessing by consulting the reference materials


Translating phrases literally

Making his own translation

Oral repetition

204

Kenny reported more strategies than he actually used in the vocabulary study session. It

is logical that the reported strategies “asking the instructor for meaning clarification,”

“listening to the instructor‟s pronunciation,” “using some simple German words with

classmates in online chatting,” and “doing homework assigned by the instructor” were not

applied in the vocabulary study session because the activity was designed to be carried out by

the participant alone without the presence of the course instructor, the classmates, and the

computer. However, it is worth noticing that the two reported strategies “guessing from the

context” and “connecting the target German word to words in languages other than German

(i.e., French which he had learned for many years)” were not used either. As I have mentioned

previously, the reason for that Kenny did not consult the textual context at all may be because

the words/phrases were presented in the form of a word list, and consulting the print dictionary

directly to find out the meaning of unknown words was faster and easier for the participants.

As for the strategy “connecting the target German word to words in languages other than

German (i.e., French)”, I assume that Kenny did not use it probably because the German target

words/phrases were not similar to any French word he knew or he could recall. Hence, he was

not able to make such connection.

In addition, the data from Kenny‟s questionnaires, interviews, and think-aloud

protocols show the following two characteristics: (1) the contrast between his self-perception

about memory and the outcome of his word list study session (2) the exclusive use of

maintenance repetition to memorize the word. In the questionnaires, he answered that

remembering German vocabulary was not difficult for him because he was very confident of

his memory. However, in the quiz, he could not remember much of the words that he had just

studied – this might be caused by proactive interference (i.e., the French words he had learned

205

before interfered the German words he had just studied). The contrast indicates that when

conducting a research in vocabulary learning strategies, it is not sufficient to collect only

retrospective data which only look at learner beliefs. In additional to the retrospective data,

eliciting introspective data will strengthen the richness, the credibility, and the reliability of the

study.

The other characteristic is Kenny‟s exclusive use of maintenance repetition. He did not

pay attention to the spelling of the words, to the capitalization of nouns. He did not think about

the meanings of words or elaborate them either. In other words, he paid attention neither to the

structural nor the semantic aspects of the input. His poor performance in the quiz seem to

support the view of the levels of processing framework that merely repeating the words orally

is not an effective way to register information in our memory. Nevertheless, I cannot rule out

the possibility that other factors, such as motivation, anxiety (although he said he was not

anxious at all), or the effect of the empirical study105

affected Kenny‟s performance that day.

6.1.5 Erik



Erik, 20 years old, studied economics at the University of Waterloo. English is his L1.

His family background is German. A few family members could speak German (e.g., his

mother), but very little. Nevertheless, he had never learned or spoken German before. He had

learned French for nine years at the elementary and high school levels, but he evaluated his

French proficiency as poor. His German background played an important role in making the

105

In fact, study effect could also play a role in why some participants (e.g., Anna and Sarah) did particularly well

in the quiz. This possibility should also be considered.

206

decision to take GER 101. His German relatives were very delighted that he is interested in

learning more about the language and the culture. He also believed that learning German or

learning a foreign language in general could be helpful for his future career. He wanted to

major in economics and thought that, in the future, he might have to go on business trips to

other countries. The ability to communicate in German could be an advantage for his career.


Based on my course observation, Erik was fairly active in the GER 101 class. He rarely

missed a class and always sat in the front row. He was not scared of speaking German and did

not feel uncomfortable when the instructor called on him to answer questions. Actually, he

often volunteered to answer the instructor‟s questions or questions from the classmates.

Erik said that he did not mind working in a group in class, because that way he could

practice German with the others. However, for quizzes or tests, he usually studied alone to

avoid distractions. He did not study regularly, but he was trying hard to do so. He explained

that, at the beginning of the school term, he was more able to study everyday. But as he met

more people from the university, and spent more time in conversations with them, his time for

study decreased.

His primary resource for learning German was the course itself, which included the

instructor and the textbook package. From time to time, he watched German movies with

English subtitles, but usually for entertainment, not to facilitate his learning. He thought that

the course instructor was very important for learning proper pronunciation. He wanted to be

able to speak German without an English accent in order to be better understood. Hence, he

was delighted that the course instructor was a German native speaker.

207

Erik treated vocabulary as the focal point for his learning of German. He believed

vocabulary is terribly important in terms of expressing oneself and getting to know the culture

better. His goal was to spend half an hour a day studying vocabulary. However, as described

above, this plan was carried out much better at the beginning of the term. His social life

distracted him from studying.

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Erik

Erik stated in the questionnaires that, when he encountered unknown words, he

generally consulted the print dictionary he owned and the online dictionaries, “although

context is always a keystone.” In other words, he usually turned to dictionaries directly, but

sometimes, he also tried to figure out the meaning through the context. However, he also

pointed out that, very often, guessing through the context was not easy for a beginner like him,

because he didn‟t know much vocabulary, and there might be too many unknown words in the

sentence which makes the context very obscure.

Babel Fish was the E-dictionary that Erik usually uses. He used it as a quick reference

to find the English translation of an unknown German word or vice versa. Nevertheless, he was

cautious of the electronic dictionary. He did not use it to translate a whole sentence or phrases,

because he was aware that online dictionaries usually directly translate the words without

regard to sense. Finally, Erik also mentioned that if he encounters unfamiliar words in class, he

often asks the instructor directly for clarification, usually a translation to English.

Although studying vocabulary was the priority he set for the German course, when I

asked in the interview whether he had any plans to increase his vocabulary, he answered that

208

there was “nothing too structured” for it, he simply tried to “sit down and memorize” (Erik,

Interview 2, 89-90).

He stated in the questionnaires that he treated vocabulary memorization “with

enjoyment and enthusiasm.” Hence, my questions concerning his vocabulary learning process

first focused on how he memorized vocabulary. Did he do anything before he sat down to

memorize or while he was working on memorization? In the interviews, he revealed that he

actually had a unique way to enhance his memories, not merely sitting down and starting to

learn as he claimed. Like many other students, Erik also took notes in the classroom. He

basically recorded everything the instructor wrote on the blackboard. His course notes play a

significant role in his learning process, especially for increasing his vocabulary size in German.

The notes were composed of grammatical structures, pronunciation tips for certain consonant

combinations (such as sch, ch, and st), and vocabulary introduced in class. Erik said that, after

class, he read through his notes and wrote down new vocabulary on flash cards. The words on

the flash cards were not written randomly. The words on the same card usually shared the same

part of speech or were in the same semantic field. For instance, on one card, he grouped the

color words (e.g., rot, orange, blau and so on), and all the country names (e.g., Kanada,

Mexiko, Japan, Österreich, etc.) were listed together on another card. He also wrote sentences

(e.g., Machen Sie das Buch zu. Stehen Sie auf. Stehen Sie still). When the German words were

nouns, he usually included the definite articles (e.g., the classroom objects: die Steckdose, der

Papierkorb, der Boden). German verbs were generally listed in the infinitive form without

conjugations. On the one side of the card, he wrote the words/sentences in German exclusively.

When he wanted to see the translations in English, he needed to flip over the cards.

209

Erik pointed out that creating the flash cards was a good reinforcement for his memory.

He revealed that, when writing down the words both in German and in English on the cards, he

also pronounced the words out loud. In this way, he became familiar with the spelling, the

meanings, as well as the pronunciations of the words. For him, speaking the words out loud

several times while memorizing them was a very natural movement and necessary too. “It

creates some sort of muscle memory in your mouth,” said Erik (Erik, Interview 2, 228-229).

He also thought pronouncing the words accurately helped him to remember the spelling better.

He stated in the questionnaires: “Once I understand the intonation of the individual letters

through practice of the alphabet, spelling flows easily and naturally.” Hence, knowing how to

pronounce a word accurately was fairly crucial to him. In this, he was dependent on the course

instructor. He was of the opinion that a good language instructor should be able to demonstrate

and to teach the correct pronunciation to the students.

The flash cards did not only assist him with memorization, but also functioned as a

“monitor.” As described above, Erik wrote words in German on one side of the cards, and the

English translation on the other side. In this way, he could easily quiz himself about the word

meaning in both English and German, and quickly discover whether or not he could answer

correctly. Sometimes, he also gave the flash cards to his roommates or friends, and asked them

to quiz him by saying the words in English to which he would answer with the German

equivalents.

As for using the words he had studied, Erik said that he tried to do homework and

incorporate the words in the assignments given by the instructor. But other than that, he did not

really use German much in his daily life.

210


Vocabulary learning strategies used by Erik in the word list study session

During the word list study session, when seeing words that he was not familiar with,

Erik consulted various reference materials, such as the textbook and the print dictionary. He

usually turned to the textbook first to find the word in the Anlauftext and to guess the word

meaning from the textual context or from the pictures. If the context did not provide much

information, he then looked up the word in the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of

Chapter Three or the print dictionary. For instance, as he saw the nouns Kaugummi and Mund,

he consulted the Anlauftext and found the sentence “Hat sie immer ein Stück Kaugummi im

Mund?” He looked at the sentence and the picture and said, “it seems like something to do with

junk food” (Erik, TAP, 57-58). He then consulted the dictionary and discovered that

Kaugummi actually means chewing gum. However, he still did not know what Mund is. He

returned to the Anlauftext and looked at the picture again, and guessed Mund is chips. Then he

consulted the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) and found out Mund is mouth. Finally, he went

back to the original sentence “Hat sie immer ein Stück Kaugummi im Mund?” and translated it

as “Does she always have chewing gum in her mouth?” (Erik, TAP, 74-75)

Another example showing that Erik was aware of the importance of context is evident

in the process of discovering the meaning of Politik. In the Anlauftext, he found the sentence in

which Politik appears: Versteht sie etwas von Politik? He translated the sentence as “Does she

understand local politics?” From his translation, it is clear he assumed Politik is politics

because he recognized the similarities in sound and spelling between the two words. However,

he was not certain about the word etwas, and thus, he thought Politik could have a different

meaning. He looked for this word in the dictionary and found out that it does mean politics.

211

Nevertheless, he did not simply stop here. He continued to read the example sentences under

Politik in the dictionary to understand how this word is used contextually. This was something

that none of the other research participants did, although a couple of them also claim that they

use the context for discovering the meaning of an unknown word. The example also reveals

that Erik double checked the meanings of the known words even when he guessed the meaning

correctly.

As mentioned above, Erik created flash cards. During the word list study session, he

also tried to use flash cards to discover the meanings of words, such as wandern, but he could

not find the word, although he recalled that he had written it on one of the cards.

The only two lexical items whose meanings Erik had difficulties finding were verstehen

von etwas and halten von etwas. For verstehen von etwas, he first translated it as to understand

something or anything, as he understood the sentence “Versteht sie etwas von Politik?” in the

Anlauftext. However, he was still puzzled by the preposition von. He looked up von in the

German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook and saw that it means from or by. Thus,

he guessed that it means to understand from something, to gain knowledge, to piece things

together. Nevertheless, he was not very positive that it made much sense.

Discovering the meaning of halten von etwas was not easy for him either. He guessed

the verb halten is equivalent to halt in English. Thus, he literally translated the phrase as stop

doing, stop everything, stop something, stop by something.

As Erik worked through the word list, he wrote each of the lexical items in German on

an extra sheet of paper. He did that mainly to “become familiar with the spelling” (Erik,

Interview 2, 22-23), as he said during the think-aloud protocols. Hence, he wrote the items

mostly only in German, not their equivalents in English.

212

In order to remember the words, he simply read the list aloud once. He did not orally

repeat the words numerous times. As he reviewed the nouns, he also read the definite articles

too. Basically, remembering the word list was not too hard for Erik, because he was familiar

with many of the lexical items. For instance, he revealed in the think-aloud protocols that he

knew Wochenende is weekend because the course instructor always said it to the students in

class on Friday. Further, he also mentioned briefly that he was familiar with the word vielleicht

previously. He knew the word from the video game “Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings” which

he used to play. As for the last lexical items on the word list, nur Bahnhof verstehen, Erik

recalled that it means to understand nothing because the instructor explained it in class.

Results of the quiz

Erik did well in the Quiz. He only answered the following three questions incorrectly:

probably (wahrscheinlich, but he wrote: vielleicht), train station (he misspelled the word

Bahnhof as Bahnhoff), and to think of something (halten von etwas, but he wrote verstehen von

etwas). It was not surprising that he did not know halten von as to think of, because he thought

halten von etwas means to stop something, or to be stopped by something.


Erik did not have problems with the first two receptive activities. He recognized the

following 15 words in the first activity: Wochenende, tragen, lächeln, Schweinefleisch,

Kaugummi, fernsehen, mitbringen, Bahnhof, bleiben, halten, Gepäck, wahrscheinlich,

verstehen, wandern, vielleicht. In the second activity, in the seven sentences, he recognized

most of the words which he had just studied, such as Gepäck, mitbringen, Fußball, Bier,

fernsehen, wandern, lächeln, and found the matching pictures.

213

For the third activity, he took out his course notes because the instructor had discussed

German and American stereotypes in class. Erik thought he might be able to use some of the

words he wrote down in the notes to describe Canadian stereotype as well. He also used the

Collins Dictionary to look up words he needed. The first Canadian stereotype he thought of

was “Canadians live in igloos.” He guessed the igloo is spelled the same in German, but with

capital letter I (Igloo). He added s to Igloo to indicate plural, but he was not sure whether it

would work this way in German. Then he wrote: wohnen in Igloos in the first circle. Next, he

added “Alle Kanadier lieben Hockey” and “Alle Kanadier spielen mit Schnee,” “alle Kanadier

sagen „Eh‟,” “lesen Pierre Berton,” “lächeln immer,” “fressen Hotdogs” to the circles. Then,

he consulted his notes and found the phrase “trinken immer Bier.” He used it to describe a

Canadian stereotype as well, but he stressed “aber Kanadier sind nicht immer betrunken.”

Then, he made a joke about Canadians being dumb. He looked up the German equivalent for

the word dumb in the dictionary. There are two equivalents listed under the entry dumb – taub

(as in Sie ist taubstumm. She is deaf and dumb) and blöd (stupid). He selected taub

immediately without looking at how it is used in the context. Finally, he believed that people

think it is absolutely freezing cold here in Canada. He looked up cold in the dictionary and saw

the German noun Kälte. Hence, he added “Alle Kanada ist sehr Kälte” to the last circle.

In the fourth activity, he put together the words from the previous activity. The text

reads as follows:

Alle Kanadier sagen “Eh?”

Alle Kanada ist sehr Kälte.

Alle Kanadier lesen sicher Pierre Berton auch sind taub.

Alle Kanadier spielen mit Schnee und bestimmt lieben Hockey.

214

Sie sind immer freundlich und lächeln immer aber wohnen in Igloos.

Alle Kanadier trinken immer Bier aber sie sind nicht immer betrunken.

The processes of carrying out the two productive activities showed that Erik did not

attend to the part of speech of the word. Take the word cold in freezing cold as an example, in

the Collins Dictionary, there are two entries for the word cold (see Figure 6.9 below):

Figure 6.9. The lexical entries of cold in the Collins Dictionary.

cold ADJECTIVE

(see also cold NOUN)

kalt The water‟s cold. Das Wasser ist kalt. It‟s cold today. Heute ist

es kalt.

(When you talk about a person being cold, you use the impersonal

construction)

I am cold. Mir ist kalt. Are you cold? Ist dir kalt?

--- (Next page) ---

cold NOUN (see also cold ADJECTIVE)

die Kälte I can‟t stand the cold. Ich kann die Kälte nicht ausstehen.

der Schnupfen (PL die Schnupfen) to catch a cold einen Schnupfen

bekommen

to have a cold einen Schnupfen haben

I‟ve got a bad cold. Ich habe einen üblen Schnupfen.

Although the dictionary indicates explicitly that cold can function both as an adjective

and a noun in a sentence, Erik did not attend to this information. It is also possible that he did

not know cold in freezing cold is an adjective. Thus, he just picked up the equivalent that he

saw first.

6.1.5.3 Analysis of Erik‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

In the questionnaires and interviews, Erik reported that he usually consulted a print or

an electronic dictionary with caution, guessed from the context (but only when he knew

215

enough words in the context), and asked the instructors for a clarification when coming across

an unknown word in class. Also, he reported that he took notes in class, did homework

assigned by the instructor, and made flash cards. On the flash cards, words of the same part of

speech or from the same semantic field were grouped together. Pronouncing the words

accurately was helpful for him to remember the spelling. Oral repetition was also employed to

enhance memorization. Finally, he tested himself or asked his friends to quiz him.

In the vocabulary study session, in order to discover meanings of unknown words, he

consulted various reference materials including the textbook (e.g., Anlauftext, Wortschatz,

German-English Vocabulary), the print dictionary, and the flash cards he had created. He also

guessed from the context, and analyzed the pictures in the Anlauftext. Further, he recognized

the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the German word and its equivalent in English

and then inferred the meaning. However, he confirmed the results of guessing by consulting

reference materials. For the phrases, he translated them literally and made his own translation.

He took notes, wrote the German word on the extra sheet to facilitate memorization of the

word spelling, and orally repeated the list one time. Table 6.5 below summarizes the

vocabulary learning strategies reported by Erik as well as actually used strategies in his think-

aloud protocols.

Table 6.5. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Erik.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Making flash cards



Consulting electronic dictionaries

Asking the teacher

Reviewing notes

Reviewing flash cards

Grouping words together by semantic fields

Grouping words together by parts of speech

216

Oral repetition


spelling


Testing himself

Asking others to quiz him


Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Analyzing available pictures or gestures




materials


Consulting flash cards


Making his own translation for a phrase

Reviewing notes

Oral repetition

It is noticeable that, in the vocabulary study session, Erik used some strategies to

discover meaning of unknown words that he had not reported. For instance, he analyzed

available pictures, recognized the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the German word

and its equivalent in English, consulted the flashcards he made, confirmed the result of

guessing by consulting the reference materials. I believe that these strategies were not

mentioned likely because the questions in the questionnaires and interviews were open-ended,

and Erik simply mentioned the ones that he used most often or the ones he could recall at the

time of filling out the questionnaires and during the interviews. On the other hand, there are

also some strategies that Erik reported but were not used in the vocabulary study session, such

as “consulting electronic dictionaries” and “asking the teacher.” As discussed previously, I

believe it is because of the design of the vocabulary activities which did not allow the

participants to have access to a computer or to the course instructor. Once more, it shows that,

217

in order to elicit a rich body of research data, it is important and beneficial to collect both

retrospective and introspective information from the participants.

Like Kenny, Erik also used exclusively the strategy “oral repetition” to memorize the

lexical items in the word list study session. However, his quiz results were much better than

Kenny‟s. Examining his performance, I believe the cause of the differences between their quiz

results might be rooted in the following two points: First, the lexical items on the word list

were basically not difficult for Erik, because he was already familiar with many of them. This

reduced much burden of memorization.

Second, I assume that Erik‟s way of discovering the meanings of some words (i.e.,

guessing from the context, guessing from the available pictures, consulting the print dictionary,

consulting the reference sections in the textbook) might have helped him remember the words

better. For instance, as he saw the nouns Kaugummi and Mund, he consulted the Anlauftext and

found the sentence “Hat sie immer ein Stück Kaugummi im Mund?” He looked at the sentence

and the picture and said “it seems like something to do with junk food.” He then consulted the

dictionary and discovered that Kaugummi actually means chewing gum. However, he still did

not know what Mund is. He returned to the Anlauftext and looked at the picture again, and

guessed Mund is chips. Then he consulted the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) and found out

Mund is mouth. Finally, he went back to the original sentence “Hat sie immer ein Stück

Kaugummi im Mund?” and translated it as “Does she always have chewing gum in her

mouth?” In course of discovery, he went back and forth between the picture, the sentence in

the Anlauftext, the Wortschatz, and the dictionary. He thought about the meaning and the

context; he tried to match the word meanings with the picture, and to understand them within

the context. Likely, this whole process is actually to a certain degree a kind of making sense of

218

the input, that is, an elaboration, and that made his repetition not just a maintenance, but an

elaborative repetition which, according Craik and Tulving (1975), is a more efficient type of

repetition.

6.1.6 Ian



Ian was a 22-year-old fourth-year student majoring in environmental resource studies.

His parents are originally from Belgium, where he was born. Dutch is the first language he

learned. He lived in Belgium only until he was three and then the whole family moved to

France and lived there for three years. He learned French while living in France, and became

very fluent. When he was six, the family moved again, this time to North America. He first

lived in California for several years, and then moved to Canada. He had been living in the K-W

region for over a decade. He took GER 101 because he had a German girlfriend. Hence,

although he did not need to fulfill the language requirement, he thought that it was very

important to become proficient in German and to know the German culture better.


Ian lived in several different countries before he and his family moved to Canada over a

decade ago – Belgium, France, and the United States. In the interviews, he reveals that he still

remembers the time very well when they just arrived in the United States. When they moved

from France to California, he was very fluent in Dutch, his L1, and French, but he couldn‟t

219

speak English at all. None of the local public elementary schools in California would accept

him due to his language barrier. His parents had to send him to a private elementary school.

From Grade 1 to Grade 3 at the private school, he joined the regular classes with all the

English speaking children. He said he could not understand what the other pupils said, but he

could guess by their body language. Meanwhile, he also had his own personal language teacher

who taught him English on a one-to-one basis outside of the regular curriculum. His parents

also started to speak only English to him to make him learn English and to forget French as

soon as possible. “I was forced to forget French and to learn English,” as Ian described it (Ian,

Interview 1, 47-48). Now his English is fluent like that of a native speaker.

Because of his German girlfriend Ian thought it was very important to become

proficient in German, although she could speak English. In addition, Ian regards learning

foreign languages as crucial. Both of his parents are multilingual; they are familiar with at least

four different languages. He commented, “I feel kind of silly that I know only one” (Ian,

Interview 1, 117-118). His parents spoke Dutch to each other, but not to him. English was the

only language used between him and his parents. He could still understand some Dutch, but he

was not able to speak it fluently.

As for French, he said that he forgot most of it when he lived in the United States.

However, since he came to Canada, he had taken several French courses at school (from Grade

4 to Grade 11) and one year at UW. But he did not enjoy the French courses very much,

because, as he commented, “they (the courses) just go over the same things every year, very

repetitive, such as verb conjugations. You do not really learn anything new” (Ian, Interview 1,

124-126). After taking French courses for many years, Ian was neither comfortable speaking

220

French nor able to have a conversation in French. Hence, he evaluated his French proficiency

as poor.

Although his experience with the French courses he took before was not excellent, he

pretty much enjoyed the GER 101 course, probably because he was highly motivated, but also

because he thought the course instructor did a great job and the course atmosphere was relaxed

and entertaining. He stated that having a good instructor was important to him, because it made

learning easier. But if the instructor were not very good, it would not influence his learning

motivation much. He would still study. The only difference is that he would need to invest

more time in it.

Ian did not mind working in a group, but only in the language course, because then he

had more opportunities to practice the language with other students. Outside of the language

course, he preferred to work on his own for two reasons: First, it often turned out that he

became the one who had to finish all the work for the whole group. Second, he liked to work at

his own pace. As he described, “I like to set my own time and do things as I feel. If I feel like

procrastinating, I‟ll do that. I just don‟t like to be under pressure by other people especially”

(Ian, Interview 1, 155-158).

Ian usually studied before the exams or quizzes for the GER 101 course, and did

homework only when he had to hand it in to the instructor. He explained that he was usually

very busy due to his part-time job and the other courses he was also taking. He said that he did

not really have a timetable for school assignments. He would finish the work when he had time

for it.

In the interviews, Ian also described his philosophy about language learning which was

deeply rooted in his personal learning experience with French and English. He was a strong

221

believer in learning the language in its widest use: “Because I have taken French for so long

and I am still not confident of my French, I realize that you have to actually be there, to be

forced into the culture, forced to use it. [...] I think you really need to go, to be in that

environment. I think, if I take five years of German in university, it would be nothing

compared to five months in Germany” (Ian, Interview 2, 258-270). Hence, he planned to go to

Germany to learn the language where it is used.

Regarding the significance of vocabulary in the language learning process, Ian believed

that vocabulary plays a crucial role. “Without vocabulary, you cannot express basically

anything you want to say in the language” (Ian, Interview 2, 3-5), he commented. Although he

recognized the importance of vocabulary, he admitted that he neither spent much time nor had

a specific plan to increase his vocabulary size. He revealed that he usually invested an extra

hour per week in addition to the regular class hours to review the course material in general,

without always having a specific focus on vocabulary. However, he emphasized that going to

Germany would definitely make him learn a lot of vocabulary that he would actually use in

daily life. At the moment, he just tried to come to the German course regularly, studied for the

quizzes, and did the homework whenever he could.

Vocabulary learning strategies reported by Ian

To discover meanings, Ian said that he tried to recognize words or part(s) of the

unknown words from Dutch and English, as well as French, because some German words are

very similar to the equivalents in the three other languages he knows. He pointed out that, if he

could discover the meaning this way, it would also make it very easy for him to memorize the

222

meanings of the target words, because they were already, to a certain degree, well known to

him.

If this strategy did not work, he would guess the meaning from the context. Ian

indicated that sometimes it was not enough to apply only one strategy but that multiple

strategies at a time might be needed to discover the meaning of an unknown word. Take the

verb verbringen as an example: in this verb, Ian recognized the verb bringen, which is very

similar to its English equivalent to bring. Hence, he assumed that the verb verbringen is related

to bringen, but he could not realize verbringen actually means to spend time until he saw the

sentence “Dieses Jahr verbringe ich zwei Semester an der Universität in Tübingen” (in the

Anlauftext, Chapter 2). When none of the strategies described above were of much help, he

then turned to the reference materials, either a print dictionary, the vocabulary sections in the

textbook, or the electronic dictionaries (e.g., Google or Babel Fish).

Ian also took notes in class. He usually wrote down basically what the instructor had

taught in class. He thought the instructor taught in a very well-organized manner and the notes

were already very structured. Hence, he did not re-organize the class notes afterwards. He used

the notes to review, especially before the quizzes, but not as a consultative tool when

encountering unknown words.

Regarding memorizing the spelling of German words, Ian reported that his primary

strategy to retain the spelling was written repetition, i.e., he wrote the words repeatedly on a

paper. While he was practicing writing, he also tried to pronounce the word aloud and correctly.

In this way, he not only remembered how to spell the word but also how the word sounds.

Hence, in the future, if someone (e.g., a German) says the word in a conversation, he would be

able to recognize it. Therefore, he always paid close attention to how the course instructor

223

pronounced words in class and listened carefully when his German friends were talking to each

other in German.

As for strategies used for retaining the meaning of German words, Ian said that he

applied various strategies depending on what word needs to be remembered. The main strategy

was oral repetition with context. He said that he did not orally repeat only the target word and

its translation (either in English, Dutch or French) as a word pair, but also tried to remember

how the target word is used in the context. Take the German verb verbringen again as an

example: He did not say out loud only verbringen, to spend time several times, but also the

sentence “Dieses Jahr verbringe ich zwei Semester an der Universität in Tübingen,” or other

sentences in which the verb appeared.

Sometimes Ian also made a sound association between the target word and its

equivalent either in English, Dutch or French. For example, in order to remember that Tür

means door in English, he would deliberately pronounce Tür in a series from Tür – dür – dur

and finally door. This is not much different from the strategy Anna said she applied to

memorize Tür - door (see 6.1.1 above). Ian indicated that, in general, learning vocabulary in

German had not been difficult for him, because his knowledge in the three other languages

very often assisted him greatly. If he could relate the new word to English, French or Dutch, he

could remember it very fast, and the memory lasted longer, too. Like Anna, he also said that

when remembering the word Fenster, he would relate it to the equivalent in French fenêtre to

assist his memory.

In addition, sometimes he also practices the words he had learned in the German class

with his girlfriend and other German friends. Ian also mentioned that, in the emails he had been

exchanging with his girlfriend, she had been writing more and more German words. Although

224

they were not always the words he knew, and he referred to the dictionary or asked her directly

for clarification (however, rarely), he was delighted he had the opportunity to learn and

practice German this way. That is an advantage that the other five research participants did not

have in their vocabulary learning processes.


Vocabulary learning strategies used by Ian in the word list study session

Like Erik, Ian also remembered parts of the lexical items on the list. When seeing

words that he was not familiar with, or when he was not completely sure that he knew the

correct meanings of the words, Ian always consulted the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the

end of Chapter Three or the Collins Dictionary. For instance, as Ian saw the word Politik, he

was very confident that it means politics as it sounds and looks very similar to its English

equivalent. However, he was not certain about the definite article die. He wanted to know

whether die signifies a feminine noun singular or the plural form of the noun. Hence, he

consulted the dictionary for clarification.

The similarity in spelling and/or sound between the target word and English equivalent

also helped Ian to guess the meanings of the words Schweinefleisch, and Bier. As Ian saw the

word Schweinefleisch, like Anna, he said immediately “that sounds exactly like it is … swine

flesh” (Ian, TAP, 31). However, similarity is not always an advantage; it could also lead to

erroneous guesses. For instance, as Ian saw the verb halten in the phrase halten von etwas, he

also assumed that halten means halt, to stop. He said, “halt that sound … sounds very much

like stop … stop something I suppose” (Ian, TAP, 202-203). However, he referred to the

Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) and saw the entry halten von translated as to think of (Vorsprung,

225

2002, p. 119). He realized the phrase actually means to think of something, not to stop

something.

Ian immediately recognized the word Bahnhof as train station because of the idiom nur

Bahnhof verstehen. He said, “der Bahnhof, that would be the train station. I only know that

because of the strange expression in the book that means you don‟t understand anything” (Ian,

TAP, 12-13).

As he saw the verb fernsehen, he recognized sehen as to see and recalled that fernsehen

means to watch TV. However, like Kevin, he also believed that fern must mean television.

After Ian discovered the meaning of a lexical item, he immediately wrote the English

equivalent. He used an extra sheet of paper and wrote the German word and its English

equivalent next to each other like a word pair. When the verb was a strong verb, he also wrote

down conjugations of the 3rd

and 2nd

person singular (e.g., er isst, du isst; er trägt, du trägst).

For nouns, he also wrote the definite articles. While he was writing the words, he also

pronounced them aloud. After he worked through the word list, he returned to the top of the list

and orally repeated all of the German words and their English translation once or twice. When

he repeated nouns, he also repeated the definite article.

As for the noun Gepäck, he made a phonetic and/or semantic (sound and/or meaning)

connection to enhance memorization. In order to remember that Gepäck is luggage, he said,

“Gepäck … gonna pack something” (Ian, TAP, 40). In this case, gonna pack something

functions like a mediator, a bridge linking Gepäck and luggage.

Finally, it is worth mentioning how Ian tried to remember the gender of nouns in

addition to simply memorizing the definite article with the noun together. Like Kevin, he also

tried to make sense of the gender of nouns by finding a reason why the word is masculine,

226

feminine or neuter. For instance, for das Schweinefleisch, he said, it is “a neuter word cause we

don‟t like discriminating against pigs” (Ian, TAP, 32-33). Also, Kaugummi and Mund are both

masculine because “baseball players chew that stuff” (Ian, TAP, 56) and “Kaugummi goes in

the mouth” (Ian, TAP, 61). As well, Fußball is masculine “because it is a boy sport” (Ian, TAP,

88). Finally, das Bier, “it‟s neuter [because it is] enjoyed by men and women alike” (Ian, TAP,

124).

Results of the quiz

Among the 14 questions in the quiz, Ian answered 5 of them incorrectly. The incorrect

answers are shown as follows:

Spelling seems his weakness. He misspelled wahrscheinlich (which he had great

difficulty recalling), Bahnhof, and Gepäck, although he pronounced these words correctly

during the word list study session. He didn‟t recall nur Bahnhof verstehen for to understand

nothing; neither did he remember halten von etwas for to think of (something). However, he did

not have much difficulty recalling the gender of the nouns. It seemed that his strategy (i.e.,

making sense of the gender) was helpful in this respect.

probably:

train station:

luggage:


to think of:

wiesteinlich

das Bahnoff

das Gëback

verstehen von etwas

halten

227


In the first activity, Ian recognized the following words: Wochenende, tragen, Bier,

Politik, lächeln, Schweinefleisch, Kaugummi, fernsehen, wandern, mitbringen, Bahnhof,

vielleicht, bleiben, halten, Fußball, wahrscheinlich, verstehen, Gepäck. As he saw

wahrscheinlich, he immediately recalled that it is the word for probably in the quiz and that he

misspelled it. For the second activity, he did not have any difficulties comprehending the seven

sentences and finding the matching pictures.

For the third activity, he consulted the textbook and the Collins Dictionary and wrote

down the following phrases in the circles:

essen peameal Schweinfleisch

essen die Eis

trinken immer Bier

trinken Maple Syrup

immer sagen “Eh”

nur sprechen das Französisch

leben im “Eis Haus”

sicher hören “Celin Dion”

tragen Parkas, Moccasins

speilen gern hockey

With the phrase “leben im Eis Haus,” he meant to say “live in an igloo.” However, igloo is not

included in the Collins Dictionary. So he wrote Eis Haus to refer to igloo. Further, when

searching for the German equivalent for live (as in live in an igloo) in the dictionary, he noticed

the different part of speech of this word (see Figure 6.10 below). He first saw the translation

“lebendig (animal),” he said, “animal, oh it‟s live, not to live” (Ian, TAP, 431). He scrolled

down and saw to live. However, he did not read through the content listed under to live and

simply picked the first equivalents leben. Although both German equivalents leben and wohnen

are adequate for the context “to live in an igloo,” it seems to show that, when there is more

228

than one equivalent under one lexical entry in the dictionary, learners are most likely to pick

the first equivalent without paying attention to the context.

Figure 6.10. The lexical entries of live in the Collins Dictionary.

live ADJECTIVE (see also live VERB)

lebendig (animal)

live (broadcast)

There is live music on Fridays. Freitags gibt es Live-Musik.

to live VERB

(see also live ADJECTIVE) leben I live with my grandmother. Ich lebe bei meiner

Großmutter.

They are not married, they are living together. Sie sind nicht

verheiratet, sie leben zusammen.

wohnen (in house, town) Where do you live? Wo wohnen

Sie? I live in Edinburgh. Ich wohne in Edinburgh.

For the fourth activity, Ian wrote a text as follows:

Alle Kanadierin essen nur peameal Schweinfleisch und trinken immer Bier.

Sie immer sagen “Eh” wann sprechen.

Alle Kanadierin tragen wahrscheinlich das Parkas und Moccasins.

Wir sicher hören “Celin Dion.”

Sie leben im “Eis Haus” in nordlicher Kanada.

Alle Manner speilen gern hockey.

Alle Kanadierin nur sprechen das Franzosisch.

The text showed that in general, he knew how to conjugate verbs and use words in a context

correctly. It seemed that he did not know what the word Kanadierin (female Canadian) actually

means. He seemed to think that it is the plural of Canadian (i.e., Canadians). There were some

spelling mistakes (Schweinfleisch, speilen, hockey, Franzosisch). In fact, close to the end of

this activity, he also mentioned that “spelling is not my forte” (Ian, TAP, 462).

229

6.1.6.3 Analysis of Ian‟s Vocabulary Learning Strategy Repertoire

Through questionnaires and interviews, Ian revealed that he usually tried to recognize

the similarities in spelling and/or sound between the German words and his L1 (Dutch),

English or French, or recognize word parts. Also, he guessed from the context and consulted a

print or an electronic dictionary, and finally, asked German native speakers he was friends with.

Also, he took notes, did homework assigned by the instructor, and sometimes practiced with

German native speakers. Written and oral repetitions were very often employed for studying

words for exams or quizzes. Pronouncing words in German correctly was helpful for him to

memorize the spelling of words. Finally, he also said that he made sound connections or

connected the target German word to words in languages in Dutch or French.

In the vocabulary study session, in order to find or to confirm the meanings of the

words, Ian either consulted the Collins Dictionary or the Wortschatz at the end of Chapter

Three. He also guessed the meanings of words by the similarity in spelling and/or sound

between the target words and the English equivalents, and recognized part(s) of a word and

then guessed the meaning. Further, he took notes and wrote the German words and the

equivalents in English on an extra sheet of paper. He repeated the words orally, made sense of

the gender of nouns by finding a reason why the word is masculine, feminine or neuter, and

memorized the definite articles together with the nouns. Table 6.6 below summarizes the

vocabulary learning strategies reported by Ian as well as actually used strategies in the think-

aloud protocols.

230

Table 6.6. Vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by Ian.

Reported

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Recognizing part(s) of a word and then guess the meaning


Recognizing cognates or borrowings




Reviewing notes


Connecting the target German words to words in languages other

than German (e.g., French or Dutch that he knows)


Oral repetition

Written repetition


spelling




Used

vocabulary

learning

strategies

Taking notes

Recognizing part(s) of a word and then guess the meaning




Reviewing notes

Making sense of the gender of nouns by finding a reason for why

the word is masculine, feminine or neuter

Oral repetition


Like Kenny and Erik, Ian also reported more vocabulary learning strategies than he

actually used in the word list study activities. For instance, he mentioned “guessing from the

context,” “consulting electronic dictionary,” “asking the course instructor or German native

speakers,” “listening to the instructor‟s (or native speaker‟s) pronunciation,” “interacting with

the course instructor or German native speakers,” and “doing homework assigned by the

instructor.” The fact that these strategies were not identified in his think-aloud protocols does

231

not mean that he did not use them for study vocabulary at all. As I have discussed before, these

strategies were not used in the vocabulary study session because of the design of the

vocabulary activities and of the way the lexical items were presented (i.e., without context).

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the elaboration strategies, “placing new words

in sentences,” “making sound and/or meaning connections,” and “connecting the target

German words to words in languages other than German (i.e., French or Dutch),”106

were

reported but not used in the vocabulary study session, either. It is possible that these

consolidation strategies were not applied because Ian was already familiar to many of the

lexical items on the word list, and thus, he did not need to make extra effort to elaborate the

target words to remember them.

Furthermore, the differences between Ian and the other participants are characterized by

the following two points: (1) his philosophy about language learning (2) better opportunities to

interact with German native speakers. His language learning philosophy was deeply rooted in

his previous learning experience with French and English. He strongly believed in learning the

language in its widest use, in the environment where is language is seen, heard, written, and

spoken. Also, compared to the other participants, Ian had the greatest opportunity to interact

with German native speakers. This was no doubt an advantage in learning the language.

However, he did not produce the best results on the quiz in my study. Nonetheless, the quiz

only tested memorizing the lexical items on the word list. It did not test how much vocabulary

he had learned. In addition, the fact that he has known many of the lexical items on the word

list might be because he had encountered those words via interaction with his German friends.

On the other hand, based on his performance on the quiz, it seems to indicate that having better

106

These strategies are regarded as elaboration strategies because the to-be-remembered information is connected

to the prior knowledge to enhance memory. See 6.2 for more detail.

232

language learning opportunities does not necessarily mean that other efforts, such as studying

and reviewing the language material and other consolidation strategies, are not needed.

6.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Classification

In the previous sections, I introduced the results of the questionnaires, the interviews,

and the performance during the think-aloud procedures. In this section, I present a

classification scheme, describe all the vocabulary learning strategies identified in my study,

and compare the participants‟ use of each of the strategies.

In total, 49 vocabulary learning strategies are identified from the interviews, the

questionnaires, and the think-aloud protocols. I divide these vocabulary learning strategies into

three primary categories:

(1) Strategies for creating study aids

(2) Strategies for discovering the meaning of unknown words, and

(3) Strategies for consolidating words.

The first category “strategies for creating study aids” includes strategies such as taking

notes, making flash cards and so on. In the research literature, those strategies are usually

viewed as memory strategies or consolidation strategies (e.g., Stoffer, 1995, Schmitt, 1997). It

is undeniable that while creating the study aids, the learner may also be trying to consolidate

the information that is being recorded on the aids. However, the data from my study show that

creating study aids is often the initial step of the research participants‟ learning process. In the

classroom, students usually take notes of what is being taught by the instructor, and then use

the notes later either as reference material for discovering meaning of unknown words or as a

233

material for review. Hence, by making “creating study aids” an additional category, I want to

stress that it is a separate and starting phase of the learning processes. The second and the third

categories are adopted from the basic classification scheme proposed by Schmitt (1997; see

Chapter Three of the present thesis).

Except in the first primary category, individual vocabulary learning strategies in the

second and the third categories are further classified into numerous subordinate categories. The

codes for the subordinate categories are derived mostly from research literature, especially

from Nation (1990, 2001), O‟Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990), and Schmitt (1997).

Tables 6.7 – 6.9 below provide an overview of the classification.

Table 6.7. Strategies for creating study aids.

Strategies for creating study aids

Taking notes (or making notes)


Making flash cards

Table 6.8. Strategies for discovering the meaning of unknown words.

Strategies for discovering the meaning of a new word

Guessing

(Inferencing)

Analyzing available pictures

Guessing from the textual context



German word and its equivalent in English or other languages (i.e.,


Connecting the target words to other German words he/she knows

Confirming Confirming the result of guessing by consulting reference source

Resourcing




Consulting the Wortdetektiv activity in the textbook





Translating Translating a phrase literally

Making their own translation

234

Table 6.9. Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered


Review study aids


Reviewing notes taken from class

Reviewing word lists made from the notes

Elaboration


Connecting the target German word to words in languages other

than German (e.g., French, Spanish)

Connecting the target word to other words in German


Making sound and/or meaning connections through a mediator

Making sense of the meaning of words by finding what is common

between the German word and its English equivalent

Making sense of the gender of nouns by making up a reason for

why the word is masculine, feminine or neuter

Grouping

Grouping words by semantic fields

Grouping words (i.e., nouns) by gender

Grouping words by parts of speech

Repetition


Written repetition



Paying attention

to sound of words

Pronouncing words in German correctly to remember spelling



Attending to

affixes and roots Making visual indication of the separability of the affixes and roots

Deduction/

Induction



Employing action Physically acting out the word

Self-evaluation Testing oneself

Asking friends to quiz him/her

Making use of

words

Using some simple German words with classmates in online

chatting


Saying the words in German to someone who may not understand

German at all


235

Like the vocabulary learning strategy taxonomies reviewed in Chapter Three of the thesis, this

taxonomy should not be viewed as “exhaustive, but rather as a dynamic working inventory”

(Schmitt, 1997, p. 204) that illustrates the major strategies identified from my empirical data.

In what follows, I will introduce the three major categories and their subcategories (6.2.1 –

6.2.3). I will also describe the individual vocabulary learning strategies in the categories in

more detail, and compare the individual participant‟s use of the individual strategies.

6.2.1 Strategies for Creating Study Aids

Taking notes

Making word lists to study

Making flash cards

Taking notes is a very common strategy used by learners in all kinds of learning

activities, or even in non-learning situations, such as in meetings, while reading books and so

on. In my study, all of the participants reported that they took notes in the German class and

used them later as important materials for review especially before exams and quizzes, as well

as reference material. During the think-aloud protocols, they also took notes of the meaning of

words they discovered. Schmitt (1997) indicates that “taking notes in class invites learners to

create their own personal structure for newly learned words, and also affords the chance for

additional exposure during review” (p. 215).

Making notes as a way of creating personal structure is particularly illustrated in the

difference between the participants‟ way of recording the lexical items. For example, Sarah‟s

course notes included pronunciation information because pronouncing the words accurately

was very important to her. Also, during the think-aloud protocols, all of the participants wrote

down the English equivalents. Anna, Sarah, Kenny and Ian all wrote English equivalents next

236

to the German words in a form of word pairs, while Kevin wrote the English equivalents

underneath the German words only now and then.

Making flash cards and word lists is also a way of creating study aids. Schmitt (1997, p.

215) points out that flash cards have two advantages: (1) They can be taken almost anywhere

and studied when one has a free moment. (2) They can be arranged to create a logical grouping

of the target words. In my study, Erik was the only participant who created flash cards outside

of the classroom in his spare time. As described previously, he grouped words based on

semantic fields or parts of speech. He reviewed the cards and used it as a means of self-

evaluation as well.

Sarah revealed in the interviews that she usually made a list of words that she needed to

study for quizzes or exams. However, after the exams or quizzes, she did not usually keep the

lists and study them again. In sum, my study shows that creating study aids is often the initial

phase of the participants‟ learning/studying processes. The aids are created for multiple

purposes: They are used as materials for reference or for consolidation.

6.2.2 Discovery Strategies

For the discovery category, 16 individual vocabulary learning strategies are recognized

and further categorized into four subordinate categories: 1. guessing (inferencing) 2.

confirming 3. resourcing 4. translating.

237

6.2.2.1 Guessing (Inferencing)

Analyzing available pictures


Guessing from the textual context

Recognizing the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the German word and its

equivalent in English or other languages (cognates or borrowings)

Connecting the target words to other words in German

Following O‟Mally and Chamot (1990), guessing (inferencing) is defined as “using

available information to guess the meaning or usage of unfamiliar language items” (p. 138).

My study shows that “available information” may derive from pictures, the textual context, or

even the word itself. For instance, during the think-aloud protocol, Erik tried to guess the

meaning of Kaugummi and Mund from the pictures and the sentence “Hat sie immer ein Stück

Kaugummi im Mund?” in the Anlauftext. However, the picture and the sentence were not of

help to guess the meaning of these two words. Erik had to turn to the dictionary and the

textbook to look them up.

The strategy “guessing from the textual context” was reported by five of the six

participants (i.e., Anna, Kevin, Kenny, Erik, and Ian). They all stated in the questionnaires or

interviews that guessing from the context was an important way for them to discover meanings

of unknown words. However, when performing in real vocabulary activities in the think-aloud

protocols, only Erik actually employed this strategy to find out the meanings of unknown

words. This seems to echo Nation‟s (2001) view that what learners report they do may be not a

true reflection of what actually happens when the learners tackle a word. Nonetheless, I cannot

exclude the possibility that this inconsistency may be caused by the way the words/phrases

were presented in the vocabulary activities: Since the words/phrases were presented on a list

without context, it is probably easier and faster for the participants to turn to the dictionary or

238

the reference sections in the textbook directly, although they were all told that the lexical items

on the list were derived from the Anlauftext and they could use the textbook anytime they

needed to during the word list study sessions. I assume that if the words/phrases were

presented within a context, for example, if I had given them the original Anlauftext and

highlighted the words/phrases that were to be studied in a different color, the chance that the

participants would have used the context to guess word meaning would have increased. Hence,

the fact that the participants did not infer meaning from the context in the vocabulary activities

does not necessarily mean that they never use this strategy when encountering new words. The

way the words are presented plays an important role for the use of this strategy.

Participants also very often inferred the meaning of a German word by recognizing the

similarities in spelling and sound between the word and its equivalent in English (mostly) or in

other languages they know, such as French, Spanish, or Dutch. For instance, in Chapter 6.1, we

have seen that most of the participants found the meanings of the words Bier, Fußball and

Politik very quickly and correctly because these words look and sound very similar to their

English equivalents beer, football, and politics. Overall, similarity in sound and spelling

between two languages is an excellent resource for guessing the meaning and remembering the

words (Schmitt, 1997, p. 209). However, similarity is not always an advantage and may lead to

erroneous inference as well. For instance, when Kevin saw the noun die Politik, he believed it

means a female politician, and he was very certain that der Mund is the moon.

It is not uncommon for the participants to recognize only part(s) (e.g., prefixes or roots,

or word of a compound word) of a German word, and based on the knowledge of the part(s),

they tried to infer the meaning of the word. For instance, Anna recognized sehen in fernsehen.

Sometimes, the parts are helpful clues for guessing the meaning of the whole word, but not

239

always. For example, in the interviews, Ian illustrated that, although he recognized bringen in

verbringen, this knowledge was not very useful for discovering the meaning. He did not realize

the actual meaning of verbringen until he saw the sentence “Dieses Jahr verbringe ich zwei

Semester an der Universität in Tübingen.”

The strategy “connecting the target words to other German words” was helpful for

Anna to discover the meaning of fernsehen in the think-aloud protocols. Anna saw the verb

sehen in fernsehen and recalled the noun Fernseher (television) and thus inferred correctly that

fernsehen is to watch TV. In fact, Anna was the only one who recalled Fernseher and thus

inferred the meaning of fernsehen correctly. In contrast, Kevin and Ian misinterpreted fern in

fernsehen and believed that, since sehen is to watch, fern must be television. It shows that, in

contrast to Anna, Kevin and Ian did not remember the noun Fernsehen which they had already

encountered in Vorsprung, Chapter One. Also, it indicates that knowing more vocabulary in

the target language may be beneficial for guessing meaning of unknown words.

6.2.2.2 Confirmation

Confirm the result of guessing by consulting the reference materials

This strategy was used by Sarah, Kevin (somewhat inconsistently), Kenny, and Erik in

the think-aloud protocols after guessing the meanings of words they did not know. Among the

three of them, Sarah and Kenny employed this strategy most consistently, while Kevin only

confirmed the accuracy of his guesses occasionally. It is perhaps not surprising that Sarah

applied this strategy because, as she described in the interviews, she liked to be certain that she

got the right answers, and she did not like guessing.

240

Confirming the results of guessing is a strategy which has been neglected in the

research literature of vocabulary learning strategies. However, my study shows that it plays a

significant role in the process of discovering correct meanings of words. Especially in the case

of Kevin whose inference of word meaning is strongly dependent upon the similarities between

German and English and even on wild guesses (e.g., wahrscheinlich = sneeze; nur = near),

confirming the meaning in the reference materials is necessary. However, the study also shows

that confirming the guesses in the reference source does not necessarily lead to discovering the

correct word meaning. The premise is that the learners know how to use the reference source

properly (see below 6.2.2.3 Resourcing).

6.2.2.3 Resourcing



Consulting the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of the chapter of the textbook

Consulting the Wortdetektiv exercise in the textbook chapter





Another way of finding a word‟s meaning is resourcing. Following O‟Mally and

Chamot, 1990, resourcing is defined as “using available reference sources of information about

the target language” (p. 138). In my study, the participants used various reference materials

including dictionaries, textbooks, course notes, and flash cards to discover the meaning of

unknown words. Also, Anna, Sarah, Erik and Ian all mentioned that they use electronic

dictionaries as a means for word meaning discovery. I believe that with the rapid development

of the internet, use of electronic dictionaries will become more and more common because they

241

offer a very fast and convenient way of finding meanings, as well as being free of charge,

which is important for students.

Among the various reference materials, the print dictionary and the textbook are most

frequently used by the participants, while flash cards are the least commonly used (only Erik

made flash cards). In regard to the use of the print dictionary, data from the word list study

sessions show that most of the participants simply search for the English translation of the

target words without looking further at the example sentences in the dictionary entry. Erik was

also the only one who paid attention to the example sentences. For instance, when he looked up

Politik in the Collins Dictionary to confirm that it indeed means politics, he also read the

example sentences listed under Politik to gain a better understanding of the use of the word in

context.

Furthermore, participants‟ performances in the follow-up vocabulary activities show

that many of them (especially Kevin, Kenny, and Erik) did not know how to properly use the

English-German part of the dictionary to search for the German translations they needed.

Neither did they know how to read the information in the lexical entry. When more than one

translation was provided under the same English lexical entry, they usually picked the first

translation immediately. They did not notice the different parts of speech of the words. Nor did

they pay attention to how the words are used in context. Hence, I would argue that it is

important to teach language learners the strategy of dictionary use already in the early stage of

language learning so that they are able to use dictionaries adequately to look up words.

Besides dictionaries, all of the research participants at some point used the textbook for

reference to discover the meaning of the lexical item on the word list. They either used the

Wortdetektiv exercise at the beginning of chapters, the Wortschatz at the end of each chapter,

242

or the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. It is worth noticing that Kevin

missed several words in the German-English vocabulary, such as Gepäck, verstehen, and

halten, although they are listed there. He saw Verstand, not verstehen, which is listed only

several words below Verstand, and he saw halt, but not halten which stands immediately

below halt. It seems that he was quite confused by the similarities in spelling between the

words and he did not pay attention to the spelling of the words too well. It also confirms that he

has problems with spelling, as he stated in the interviews.

Finally, the strategy of asking the course instructor or German native speakers directly

for meaning clarification was reported by Erik and Ian, while Sarah stated that she rarely asks

the course instructor any questions.

6.2.2.4 Translation


Making his/her own translation

Discovering the meaning of a phrase or expression is usually much more difficult than

that of a single word. When encountering the phrases verstehen von etwas, halten von etwas,

and nur Bahnhof verstehen, many of the research participants encountered huge difficulties in

discovering the correct meanings. They tended to infer the meaning of a phrase by looking up

the words of the phrase separately in the reference materials, and then translating each word of

the phrase in English. When the outcome of the English literal translation did not make much

sense to them, they made their own translation.

For instance, Kevin spent much time in discovering the meaning of verstehen von etwas.

He looked up the word verstehen and etwas separately and his translations changed from to

243

think and understand somewhat, to understand only somewhat, and finally to to almost

understand. Kenny looked up the words etwas and verstehen separately and decided that the

phrase means to know a bit. Erik looked up von in the German-English vocabulary at the end

of the textbook and saw that it means from or by. Since he already knew that verstehen is to

understand, he came to the conclusion that the phrase means to understand from something, to

gain knowledge, to piece things together.

As for the phrase halten von etwas, Anna believed that it means to hold something

because she looked up halten in her own course notes and found that the verb means to hold.

Sarah translated it as to think of some/somewhat. Kevin inferred that the phrase means just

understand, while Kenny interpreted it as do not have a lot. Erik mistakenly assumed halten is

halt in English, then he literally translated the phrase as stop doing, stop everything, stop

something, stop by something.

Finally, there was the idiom nur Bahnhof verstehen. Sarah found the phrase in the

German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook. However, the textbook translates the

phrase as to not speak much German, not as to understand nothing which was explained by the

instructor in class. Kevin guessed that it means to understand the train station, or no where

close to the train station. Kenny understood it as to know where the station is. In contrast to

Sarah, Kevin, and Kenny, Anna, Erik and Ian did not have problems with this phrase because

they all recalled very well that the instructor explained it as to understand nothing.

Participants‟ performance in the vocabulary activities indicates that phrases/expressions

were extremely difficult for learners because they consist of multiple words, so learners are

faced with multiple words concurrently. They need to find out what each single word of an

expression means, as well as what the expression signifies. The difficulty of comprehension

244

and memorization increases tremendously. Hence, I believe that, when expression are

incorporated in texts, it is important that the instructor spends time drawing learners‟ attention

to the expressions by, for instance, developing various exercises or tasks to help learners

discover the meaning of the expressions and use and practice them. This may reduce the

difficulty of understanding the meaning for the learners, and help them to remember them.

6.2.3 Consolidation Strategies

For the group of consolidation strategies, 30 individual vocabulary learning strategies

are identified and grouped into ten subcategories: 1. reviewing study aids 2. elaboration 3.

grouping 4. repetition 5. paying attention to the sound of words 6. paying attention to affixes

and roots 7. deduction/induction 8. employing action 9. self-evaluation 10. making use of

words.

6.2.3.1 Reviewing Study Aids

Reviewing notes

Reviewing word lists made for study


As illustrated previously, all of the participants said they review the study aids (i.e.,

course notes, flash cards, word lists), especially before quizzes and exams. In the think-aloud

protocols, the strategy “reviewing notes” was applied by all of the participants to consolidate

the lexical items on the word list. Also, Sarah demonstrated how she made the list and used it

for review. As illustrated above, she grouped the words of the same part of speech and words

of the same gender together to study them, she orally repeated the meaning of the words, she

spelled each and every letter of the words out loud, and finally, she quizzed herself. Again, her

245

performance confirms that she was a person who does not like to take a chance. She liked to

make sure that she has remembered all the target words. Finally, participants‟ performances

confirm my argument that creating study aids is usually the initial phase of learners‟ learning

processes, and that the study aids serve not only as reference sources, but also as significant

materials for review.

6.2.3.2 Elaboration

Elaboration is generally defined as connecting new information to prior knowledge in

memory, or connecting different pieces of information to each other. The key point is that the

connections must be meaningful for the learners. Following O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990)

and Oxford‟s (1990) definitions and classifications (see Chapter 4.3 in the present thesis), I

identify the following vocabulary learning strategies involving elaboration in my study:

Placing new words into sentences

Connecting the target German words to words in languages other than German (e.g., French,

Spanish, or Dutch)

Connecting the target German words to other words in German


Making sound and/or meaning connections through a mediator

Making sense of the meaning of words by finding what is common between the German

word and its English equivalent

Making sense of the gender of nouns by making a reason for why the word is masculine,

feminine or neuter

Placing new words into sentences was evidenced in both Anna‟s and Kevin‟s think-

aloud protocols: Anna created the sentence Alle Deutschen tragen Lederhosen when studying

tragen (to wear), while Kevin made an imperative sentence Bringen Sie mit! to facilitate

remembering the meaning of mitbringen (to bring alone). However, although they both used

this strategy for consolidation, both of them did not recall the words in the quiz correctly:

246

While Anna recalled tragen as the German equivalent for to wear correctly, Kevin wrote

mitwoch as the German equivalent for to bring alone. It seems that Kevin‟s memory of

mitbringen was interfered by the noun Mittwoch (Wednesday) which he encountered in

Vorsprung, Chapter Two. The cause of the interference may lie in the sound of the first syllable

of Mitbringen and Mittwoch (or mitwoch, as Kevin spelled it) – both words start with the sound

[mIt]. The sound similarity might lead to the interference in Kevin‟s case.

Connecting the target German words to words in French, Spanish, or Dutch is not

uncommon among the participants due to the fact that all of them have learned at least French

for some years. Both Anna and Ian stated that when memorizing the German word Fenster,

they thought of its equivalent in French fenêtre. Since they already remembered fenêtre means

window, it was easy for them to remember Fenster means window in English. Their knowledge

of French or of other languages functions as a mediator or bridge connecting the target word

and its equivalent in English. Kenny also said that if he could relate the new word to French

with which he is very familiar, he can remember it very quickly. However, none of the

participants actually used this strategy in the vocabulary activities. In my opinion, this

inconsistency between participants‟ reports and actually use of strategies may be rooted in the

German words being studied. Maybe Anna, Kenny, and Ian were not able to relate any of the

German words on the word list to French. Once more, it does not necessarily mean that they

never used this strategy to remember German words.

The strategy “connecting the target German word to other words in German” was

mentioned and actually used by Anna during the word list study session. In the think-aloud

protocols, she related Bahnhof to Autobahn, and lächeln to lachen to enhance memorizing

247

Bahnhof and lächeln. This again indicates that having a larger vocabulary size in the target

language could be an advantage for remembering new words through elaboration.

The strategy “connecting the new word to a real figure” was demonstrated by Kevin

when he connected the word Politik to Hillary Clinton based on the mistaken guess that die

Politik means a female politician. This example implies that elaboration could be effective for

memory, but only when the original inference is correct. The confirmation strategy needs to be

carried out properly before the learners move on to memorization. Otherwise, what they

remember may not be correct, and the effort of elaboration will not be successful.

Making sound connections was reported by Anna and Ian during the interviews. They

both revealed that in order to remember the word-pair Tür – door, they tried to pronounce Tür

or its L1 equivalent door like dur/dür. Dur/dür functions as a sound mediator leading them

from Tür to door or vice versa. As for making sound and meaning connections, it was

evidenced in the word list study sessions when Anna and Kevin tried to make sense of the

word pair Gepäck – luggage. Anna made the connection Gepäck – pack – luggage, while

Kevin linked Gepäck, to pack and backpack, and then to luggage. The mediators pack and

backpack share to a certain extent sound and spelling similarities with Gepäck, and are also

semantically related to luggage. This strategy seemed helpful for both participants: Anna

answered the question luggage in the quiz correctly. As for Kevin, although he made a spelling

mistake (he wrote das gepäck), his answer shows that he remembered the phonetic and

semantic association between luggage and Gepäck.

As for the strategy of making sense of the meaning of words by finding what is

common between the German word and its English equivalent, Anna was the only person who

tried to make a connection between Kaugummi and chewing gum in the word list study session.

248

She noticed gum is incorporated in Kaugummi (she was also the only participant that noticed it),

and thus, she thought it made sense that Kaugummi means chewing gum. Anna is also the

participant that used the elaborative strategies most often (i.e., five of the seven strategies in

this group were applied by her to memorize the word list). It shows that making connections

and making sense of the target words play an important role in Anna‟s memory processes.

Finally, the last strategy in this group, making sense of the gender of nouns by finding a

reason for why the word is masculine, feminine or neuter, was clearly demonstrated by Kevin

and Ian in the think-aloud protocols. For instance, to remember Schweinefleisch is neuter,

Kevin said that Schweinefleisch is neuter, because the pork is dead, doesn‟t have a gender,

while Ian explained that it is “a neuter word cause we don‟t like discriminating against pigs.”

Also, both of them relate Fußball to masculine article der by thinking of football as a

masculine sport. Nonetheless, these two German nouns were not included in the quiz, thus, it is

difficult to judge whether this strategy was helpful for the two participants or not.

6.2.3.3 Grouping

Grouping refers to the process of ordering or classifying words based on common

attributes (O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 119, 138). In sum, three types of grouping are

identified from the data:

Grouping words by semantic fields

Grouping words (i.e., nouns) together to study them, based on gender

Grouping words together to study them, based on parts of speech

Grouping was a way for Erik to organize the words he wrote on his flash cards. For

instance, he wrote words of the same semantic fields (e.g., classroom objects) or words sharing

the same part of speech on the same card. Grouping also played a significant role in Sarah‟s

249

memorization process. She grouped words of the same part of speech and words of the same

gender together to study them during the think-aloud protocols.

6.2.3.4 Repetition


Written repetition

Spelling the letters aloud repetitively


Nation (2001) points out that

repetition is essential for vocabulary learning because there is so much to know about

each word that one meeting with it is not sufficient to gain this information, and

because vocabulary items must not only be known, they must be known well so that

they can be fluently accessed. Repetition thus adds to the quality of knowledge and also

to the quantity or strength of this knowledge. (pp. 75-76)

Schmitt (1997) also states that “written and verbal repetition, repeatedly writing or saying a

word over and over again, are common strategies in many parts of the world” (p. 215). In his

survey study, the Japanese ESL learners reported that they use oral and written repetition most

frequently to consolidate meaning.

In my study, all of the six participants employed oral repetition during the word list

study session. Particularly, Kenny and Erik both used this strategy exclusively to memorize

words. Also, each time after Kenny orally repeated the word pair, he always returned to the top

of the word list and repeated the preceding pairs. Thus, he is the one who orally repeated the

word list most often. However, his results on the quiz are the poorest. I do not intend to argue

that using oral repetition as the only strategy is the only cause for his poor performance in the

250

quiz. As Nation (2001) stresses, “repetition is only one of a number of factors affecting

vocabulary learning.” Nevertheless, his case suggests that oral repetition alone may not be an

efficient consolidation strategy. Reviewing Kenny‟s memorization processes during the word

list study session, it shows that he paid attention neither to the structural nor the semantic

aspects of the input. Although he orally repeated the word pairs so many times, he did not

attend to, for instance, the spelling of the words or whether the letter is capitalized, nor did he

think about the meaning of a word or elaborate it. In other words, he carried out the

maintenance rehearsal, not the elaborative rehearsal. In general, his quiz results echo the

fundamental view of the level of processing framework that rehearsal per se would not enhance

long-term memory retention.

The code “written repetition” is assigned to the data only if the participant repeatedly

practiced writing words on a paper during the think-aloud protocols. Writing down the English

equivalents or the words in German on paper one time is not viewed as written repetition.

Based on this code definition, only Anna and Sarah used this strategy during the word list

study session. However, Anna did not repeatedly write every German word, but only

wahrscheinlich and vielleicht, while Sarah wrote every word at least three times during the

process of self-testing.

Sarah was also the only one who memorized the spelling of the German words by

spelling out loud every letter of the word. As she revealed in the interviews, she had been using

this strategy for a long time. She felt comfortable using it and she thought it worked fairly well

for her.

The last strategy in this group, orally repeating the definite article with the noun

together, concerns remembering the gender of nouns. It was used by every participant, except

251

Kenny. While he orally repeated the word list, he focused only on the translation of the words.

He did not repeat the definite article together with the noun at all. His ignorance of the gender

aspect was also shown in his quiz performance: He did not write down any definite article to

the nouns although it was explicitly required in the quiz. His performance in the follow-up

vocabulary activities further confirmed that he neglected the gender aspect of the noun. When

he wrote nouns in German in the circles for the activity of writing about Canadian stereotypes,

he simply wrote down the nouns without the definite articles (e.g., hut, hockey, Biber … etc).

6.2.3.5 Paying Attention to the Sound of Words

Pronouncing words in German correctly to remember the spelling



Vocabulary learning strategies in this category concern the phonetic aspects of words.

As Nation (2001) points out, knowing what a word sounds like (receptive) and being able to

pronounce it accurately (productive) are two of the key aspects of word knowledge (see

Chapter One of this thesis).

All of the participants mentioned that they paid very close attention to word

pronunciation and listened to the instructor‟s pronunciation carefully in class to try to mimic it.

Particularly, Anna, Sarah, Erik, and Ian all emphasized that pronouncing the word accurately is

significant for them, not only because they want to be able to be understood when they speak

German, but also because it helps them greatly in remembering the spelling of words. However,

I also noticed that pronouncing the word accurately alone may not guarantee that the word will

be spelled correctly. For instance, in the follow-up vocabulary activity, Ian pronounced the

verb spielen (to play) accurately but he wrote it as speilen.

252

In addition to paying attention to word pronunciation, Kevin revealed that he is also

aware of the symbolic volume of the sound (or the “pitch of words” as Kevin called it). For

instance, to him, the definite article der sounds a bit harsher and thus more masculine, while

the article die is a higher-pitched sound and thus more feminine.

6.2.3.6 Paying Attention to Affixes and Roots

Making visual indication of the separability of the verbs

For the two verbs mitbringen and fernsehen, Anna and Kevin both inserted a dot or a

bracket between mit and bringen, and between fern and sehen. This explicitly shows that they

noticed the separability of the verbs and tried to consolidate them through making visual

indication.

However, as mentioned previously, in the quiz, Kevin did not recall mitbringen for the

question to bring along (he wrote mitwoch), although he applied various strategies to

remember mitbringen-to bring along (i.e., paying attention to affixes and roots and making

visual indication, placing it in a sentence, and frequent oral repetition). It seems to indicate that,

although attention is the fundamental condition for information to be remembered (see 4.3.1 of

this thesis) and that elaboration is helpful, in order to maintain the correct information in the

long-term memory, it is also important to avoid interference (see also 6.2.3.2 of this thesis).

253

6.2.3.7 Deduction / Induction



O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) define deduction/induction as “consciously applying

learned or self-developed rules to produce or understand the target language.” Anna‟s

descriptions of how she tried to discover the rules of the gender of German nouns and then

applied the rules to facilitate her memorization are an example of deduction/induction. She

noticed that, for instance, sometimes nouns in the same semantic field have the same gender.

She also figured out that sometimes suffixes, such as -chen or -in, are a useful indicator for the

gender of the nouns. Applying these rules helped her to deal with the gender of nouns more

easily.

6.2.3.8 Employing Action

Physically acting out the word

Employing action is listed in both Oxford‟s (1990) and Schmitt‟s (1997) classifications

as a memory strategy (see Chapter 4.3). Oxford (1990) defined it as “physically acting out a

new expression (e.g., going to the door), or meaningfully relating a new expression to a

physical feeling or sensation (e.g., warmth)” (p. 43). However, it is not very clear whether the

process of elaboration is involved, and whether it could be categorized under elaboration group.

Thus, I classify it as an individual strategy subcategory to separate it from elaboration.

Kevin is the only participant who used physical action to enhance his memory. In the

think-aloud protocols, in order to remember that Kaugummi is chewing gum, he exaggeratedly

moved his mouth slowly as if he was really chewing gum in his mouth, and said “Kaugummi”

254

by lengthening the sound of the diphthong au. Later in the quiz, Kevin did recall very well that

chewing gum is Kaugummi in German. He spelled the word correctly. However, he forgot to

capitalize the letter K and wrote kaugummi.

6.2.3.9 Self-Evaluation

Testing oneself

Asking friends to quiz him/her

O‟Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 119) describe self-evaluation as “checking the

outcomes of one‟s own language learning against a standard after it has been completed.”

However, in my opinion, self-evaluation does not always occur only after the learning (or

studying) is completed. It could happen at more than one moment during a study session as

well. For instance, during the think-aloud protocols, Sarah tested herself multiple times: She

first worked on the group of nouns, and then she tested herself to ensure that she remembered

all the nouns that she had studied, including the meanings, spelling and definite articles. Later,

after she finished studying the verbs, she tested herself again. Finally, before she wrote the quiz,

she returned to the noun group and tested again.

Anna tested herself too after studying the word list. Compared to Sarah, Anna focused

more on the meaning of words rather than on the spelling or the gender of the nouns.

Nevertheless, both Anna and Sarah employed the testing strategy consistently. If they could not

recall certain words during self-testing, they always returned to the word list and worked more

on the problem words. They tested themselves repeatedly until they could recall the target

words correctly.

255

During the interview, Erik also reported that he sometimes quizzed himself by giving

the flash cards he had created to his friends and asking them to test him on the information

recorded on the cards.

6.2.3.10 Making Use of Words

Using some simple German words with classmates in online chatting

Interacting with German native speakers (or the instructor)

Saying the words in German to someone who may not understand German at all


The vocabulary learning strategies identified in this category concern the productive

aspects of language learning: speaking and writing. Doing homework assigned by the course

instructor was the most common way for the research participants to actually use the words

they had encountered. Most of them did homework regularly, even when they did not need to

submit it to the instructor. Homework could be writing the exercises in the workbook, or

writing a short essay for a topic related to the textbook chapter. For instance, after introducing

the vocabulary of family members in Chapter Two to the class, the course instructor asked the

students to write a short text to introduce themselves or their families.

In addition to doing homework, Kenny said that he also used some simple German

words when chatting online with his classmates; Kevin stated that, when studying at home, he

liked to practice saying German words to his sister who does not understand the language at all.

Saying words out loud helps him remember the words. He also liked to say some simple words

in German to the instructor when he could, such as Entschuldigung to apologize for attending

the class late.

256

In general, making use of words is not only a good approach for consolidating words,

but also helpful for learning vocabulary; particularly the strategy of interaction with native

speakers, and writing an essay for homework. This is because, during the communication or in

the process of writing, learners may hear more new words, or they may look for words they

need to carry on the conversation or finish the essay. However, for most of the participants in

my study, the only German native speaker they knew or were able to talk to was the course

instructor. Ian had the greatest opportunity to interact with German native speakers. Compared

to the other participants, this was no doubt an advantage in learning the language. However, he

did not produce the best results on the quiz in my study. It indicates that having the advantage

of interacting with German native speaker does not mean that other efforts, such as studying

and reviewing the language material and other consolidation strategies, are not necessary.

In the end of this section, I would like to present the results of the study in a

summarized table format. Tables 6.10 – 6.12 below demonstrate the results of each individual

participant from the questionnaires, interviews, and think-aloud protocols.

257

Table 6.10. Results of individual vocabulary learning strategies reported and used by the participants. Category 1.

* Columns marked 1 behind the names of the participants refer to the questionnaire and interview, and columns marked 2 refers to the think-aloud protocols.

x: The symbol x is marked for vocabulary learning strategy reported in the questionnaires or in the interviews, or used in the think-aloud protocols.


Strategies for discovering the meaning of a new word

Anna

1

Anna

2

Sar

ah 1

Sar

ah 2

Kev

in 1

Kev

in 2

Ken

ny 1

Ken

ny 2

Eri

k 1

Eri

k 2

Ian 1

Ian 2

Guessing

(Inferencing)

Analyzing available pictures or gestures x

Recognizing part(s) of a word and then guess the meaning x x x x

Guessing from the context x x x x x x

Recognizing cognates or borrowing x x x x x x x x

Connecting the target words to other German words he/she knows x

Confirming Confirming the result of guessing by consulting the reference materials x x x x

Resourcing

Consulting print dictionary (bilingual) x x x x x x x x

Consulting electronic dictionary x x x x

Consulting the Wortschatz (Vocabulary List) at the end of the chapter of the textbook x x x x x x

Consulting the Wortdetektiv activity in the textbook chapter x

Consulting the German-English vocabulary at the end of the textbook x x x x x

Consulting course notes x x x

Consulting flash cards x

Asking the teacher or German native speakers x x x x

Translating Translating a phrase literally x x x x x

Making their own translation x x x

Strategies for creating study aids

Anna

1*

Anna

2

Sar

ah 1

Sar

ah 2

Kev

in 1

Kev

in 2

Ken

ny 1

Ken

ny 2

Eri

k 1

Eri

k 2

Ian 1

Ian 2

Taking notes x x x x x x x x x x x x

Making flash cards x

Making word lists for study x x

258



Anna

1

Anna

2

Sar

ah 1

Sar

ah 2

Kev

in 1

Kev

in 2

Ken

ny

1

Ken

ny

2

Eri

k 1

Eri

k 2

Ian 1

Ian 2

Reviewing study aids Reviewing notes x x x x x x x x x x x x

Reviewing flash cards x

Reviewing word list made from the notes x x

Elaboration

Placing new words in sentences x x x Connecting the target German words to words in languages other than German

(e.g., French, Spanish, or Dutch) x x x

Connecting the target German words to other words in German x x

Connecting the target word to a real figure x

Making sound and/or meaning connections through a mediator x x x x

Making sense of the meaning of words x

Making sense of the gender of nouns x x

Grouping

Grouping words together to study them, based on semantic fields x

Grouping words (i.e., nouns) together to study them, based on gender x

Grouping words together to study them, based on parts of speech x x

Repetition

Oral or silent repetition x x x x x x x x x x x

Written repetition x x x x

Spelling the letters aloud repetitively x x

Orally repeating the definite article with the noun together x x x x x

Paying attention to sound of

words

Pronouncing words in German correctly to remember the word spelling x x x x

Studying the symbolic volume of the sound x

Listening to the instructor‟s (or native speaker‟s) pronunciation x x x x x x

Attending to affixes and roots Making visual indication of the separability of the affixes and roots x x

Deduction/Induction Remembering the gender of nouns by the semantic field x

Remembering the gender of nouns by the suffix x

Employing action Acting out the words x

Self-evaluation Testing oneself x x x x x

Asking others to quiz him/her x

Making use of words

Using some simple German words with classmates in online chatting x

Interacting with the course instructor or German native speakers x x

Saying the words in German to someone who may not understand German x

Doing homework assigned by the instructor x x x x x x

259

In Chapter Seven, the final chapter of the present thesis, I will summarize the study,

discuss the implications for vocabulary instruction and foreign language teaching, and make

suggestions for future research.

260

Chapter Seven: Summary, Conclusions and Implications

In this final chapter of the thesis, I summarize the study, draw conclusions from the

results, discuss limitations of the study, and make suggestions for future research.

7.1 Summary of the Study

The goal of the present study is to shed light on adult students‟ German vocabulary

learning processes and to make contributions to vocabulary instruction and foreign language

teaching. I have argued that, before making suggestions for vocabulary teaching and/or

strategy instruction, one should take a step back and explore learners‟ learning processes. As

Hosenfeld (1976) point out, “Too often our focus has been on what students should be doing;

we must begin by asking what students are doing” (p. 128; also cited in Schmitt, 1997). Hence,

I conducted a multiple case study to explore individual learners‟ vocabulary learning processes,

and focus on learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies. By using multiple data collection

methods – questionnaires, interviews, and think-aloud protocols – I not only investigated what

strategies the individual research participants use to study vocabulary, but also looked at how

they actually employ the strategies during a vocabulary study session.

All of the six research participants reported that they enjoy the German language course

and like the way the instructor delivers the lessons – interesting, amusing, and relaxing. They

think that vocabulary is very important for language learning, but they do not spend much time

studying German vocabulary and the language. On average, they spend about two hours a

week in total outside the classroom. This is far less than what is suggested in the course

guidelines: six hours per week.107

The two hours per week is spent mostly in doing homework

107

In the German 101 course guideline, it is written that students “should expect to do about 1.5 hours of

homework for every hour spent in class.” The course meets 4 hours per week.

261

assigned by the instructor. Doing homework is usually the only thing the participants do to

actually make use of the vocabulary or the language they have learned in class. Although a

couple of the participants reported that they watch German movies or listen to music in

German (which does not happen very often), it is usually only for entertainment, not for the

purpose of learning German. This indicates that the course itself, including the textbook

package and the instructor, is the primary source of learning German for the participants. Most

of them do not have any other contact with the German language outside of the classroom. In

other words, the participants rarely learn vocabulary incidentally (e.g., by reading books or

listening to music in German outside of the classroom), but mostly through formal instruction

in class.

With regards to which vocabulary learning strategies are used by the participants to

tackle vocabulary, 49 strategies in total are identified from the empirical data. I divide the

identified strategies into three major groups: (1) strategies for creating study aids, (2) strategies

for discovering the meanings of unknown words, and (3) strategies for consolidating the words

once they have been encountered. Based on the activities, strategies in the second and the third

groups are further categorized into numerous subgroups. The discovery strategies are

subcategorized into four groups: guessing, confirmation, resourcing, and translation, while the

consolidation strategies are classified into ten subgroups: reviewing the study aids, elaboration,

grouping, repetition, paying attention to the sound of words, paying attention to affixes and

roots, deduction/induction, employing action, self-evaluation, and making use of words.

In the category of creating study aids, the most commonly reported and used strategy is

note-taking. All of the participants take notes in class and in the word study session in the

262

think-aloud protocols. Only Erik reorganizes the course notes and makes flash cards out of the

notes.

In the second category, the most commonly used discovery strategies are consulting

print dictionaries and consulting the textbook Vorsprung (particularly the reference sections:

Wortschatz at the end of each chapter and the German-English vocabulary at the end of the

textbook). This shows that the textbook is important for the students not only as a learning

resource but also as a reference material. Nevertheless, the study also shows that not every

participant can use the dictionary properly to find the target words. They simply search for the

English translation of the target words without looking further at the example sentences in the

dictionary entry. They do not know how to search for the German translations they need.

Neither do they know how to read the information in the lexical entry and notice the different

parts of speech of the words. When more than one translation is provided under the same

English lexical entry, they usually pick the first translation without further looking into the

context.

With regard to using the textbook for reference, Kevin cannot find several words in the

German-English vocabulary, although they are listed there. In my opinion, the reasons for the

incorrect use may be as follows: It could be that the participant is not very focused and does

not pay careful attention to the spelling of the target word. It is also possible that the participant

does not know how to use the reference sections properly. Another possibility is that the design

of the reference sections is problematic, i.e., the way that the lexical items are presented in the

reference sections makes it difficult for the participants to find the target words rapidly and

accurately.

263

Recognizing the similarity in spelling and/or sound between the German word and its

equivalents in English or other languages (i.e., recognizing cognates or borrowing) is also a

strategy that the participants often apply in the think-aloud protocols, especially for the words

Fußball, Bier, Politik, Schweinefleisch. Participants recognize the similarities and correctly

infer the word meanings most of the time. However, the data also show that erroneous

inferences can occur due to the similarities. Hence, I argue that it is important to confirm the

guesses and that confirmation strategies should be stressed, especially for students who infer

word meaning merely based on the sound and spelling similarities, like the participant Kevin.

There are many ways to confirm the inferences, for instance by consulting the reference

materials, asking native speakers or the instructor and so on. Nevertheless, for most of the

participants in my study, the only German native speaker they know is the course instructor

whom they meet only four hours a week in class. Again, this shows the importance of using

reference materials and of knowing how to use them properly.

As for the strategy of guessing from the context, five of the participants mention in the

interviews or questionnaires that they often use this strategy when they encounter unknown

words. However, during the think-aloud protocols, only one of them (i.e., Erik) actually refers

to the Anlauftext and uses the context to infer meanings of unknown words, although all of the

participants are told that the words on the word list originate from the Anlauftext and that they

can use the textbook anytime they need to during the word list study sessions. This basically

proves that what learners believe and say they usually do for studying vocabulary “may be not

a true reflection of what actually happens” when they tackle a word (Nation, 2001, p. 224),

however, I assume that the design of the vocabulary activities may also be the cause of the

inconsistency. Since the lexical items are presented on the list without a context, it would be

264

comprehensible that the participants simply consult the reference materials without looking at

the context. Consulting the reference materials directly is certainly quicker and much easier

than opening the textbook, looking for the target words in the text, and then guessing the

meaning.

On the other hand, even if the participants did consult the context, they may not be able

to infer the meanings of unknown words successfully. For instance, although Erik tries to guess

the meaning of Mund and Kaugummi from the sentence in the Anlauftext “Hat sie immer ein

Stück Kaugummi im Mund?” and from the picture which illustrates the sentence, he does not

discover the meanings of the two German words until he looks them up in the reference

materials. As Schmitt (1997) and Nation (1990, 2001) both point out, to use this strategy

properly, there are some prerequisites: a certain level of language proficiency, adequate

background knowledge of the topic, sufficient knowledge of how to use this strategy

effectively, and a rich context (Schmitt, 1997, p. 209). Nation (2001, p. 233) explicitly

indicates that at least 95% of the running words need to be already familiar to the learners. For

language beginners like the participants of my research, it is difficult to guess the meaning

correctly when there are too many unknown words in the text.

In regard to discovering the meanings of collocations and idioms (verstehen von, halten

von, and nur Bahnhof verstehen), the study shows that most of the participants have difficulties

with this process. They often look at the words in the phrase separately, and translate the

phrase literally. When the result of the literal translation does not make much sense, they make

their own translations. The only phrase that some of the participants can recall is nur Bahnhof

verstehen. They recall the meaning because the instructor has particularly explained it in class

due to its oddness. This indicates that collocations and idioms are especially confusing and

265

difficult for language learners, and that it is helpful when the instructor spends extra time

explaining them in class.

In the category of consolidation strategies, the most commonly used strategy in my

study is verbal repetition. This echoes the findings in Lawson and Hogben (1996), O‟Malley et

al. (1985), and Schmitt (1997). According to memory research, there are two types of

repetition – maintenance and elaborative. The former is supported by multi-store memory

theorists who argue that simply repeating the material over and over again is sufficient to keep

information in working memory as well as in long-term memory, while the latter is suggested

by the levels of processing framework which propose that rehearsal leads to long-term

retention only when the new information is linked to existing knowledge (see Chapter Four of

this thesis). Examining the think-aloud data in my study, maintenance repetition is best

represented by how Kenny memorizes the word list. Kenny‟s poor performance in the quiz

seem to support the view of the levels of processing framework that merely repeating the

words without elaboration is not an effective strategy to register information in our memory,

although it is possibility that other factors, such as motivation, anxiety, or the effect of the

empirical study affect Kenny‟s performance that day.

The memory research also emphasizes the role of distributed repetition (or spaced

repetition). Due to the design and the focus of the study, the think-aloud data do not convey

any information about the efficiency of distributed repetition. However, the questionnaire and

interview data reveal that the participants usually study before quizzes and exams. This

suggests that massed repetition rather than distributed repetition is more common to the

participants. In my opinion, a possible reason for why massed repetition is more common is

that the participants may not be knowledgeable about the spacing effect. This assumption is

266

grounded in the data. During the interviews, I briefly mentioned the concept of distributed

practice. Not surprisingly, none of the participants had ever heard about it.

Elaboration, although not most commonly used by the participants in my study (i.e.,

used only by Anna, Kevin, and Ian), seems to be an effective method of vocabulary

memorization. However, I would like to emphasize the importance of the correctness of the to-

be-remembered information. Kevin‟s elaboration on the words Politik and Mund shows that no

matter how much effort toward elaboration is made, if the information is not correct, the effort

will not be rewarded.

Further, the data also show that the participants do not employ traditional mnemonics at

all (such as the keyword method, the pegword method, and the loci method which are usually

viewed as elaborative strategies). This result is similar to that shown in the study by Schmitt

(1997). From my point of view, this again may be due to the reason that the participants do not

know about these mnemonics, or, that they have heard about them, but have never been

instructed on how to use them efficiently.

In addition, the study shows that participants use a variety of vocabulary learning

strategies to tackle vocabulary. It is neither useful nor possible to determine the strategy that

works best for memorizing German vocabulary because how the strategy is employed also

plays a role in the study outcome (see below). That there can be a single best strategy for every

learner is a myth that should be dispelled. In addition, as Ian points out in the interview, it is

often not enough to use only one strategy. More commonly, a combination of strategies has to

be employed to tackle the task.

The study shows that applying many strategies does not necessarily equal a good

learning outcome. How and how well the individual uses the strategy also plays a significant

267

role. In my study, among the six participants, Kevin uses the second most strategies (Anna

used the most strategies); however, the way he uses the strategies is unstructured, inconsistent,

and inefficient. His case shows that employing the strategies in a sophisticated and efficient

way is as important as (or even more important than) what and how many strategies are being

used. The “quality” aspect of strategy use should be looked into and considered a focal point

when researchers conduct a study of vocabulary learning strategies or language learning

strategies and when teachers teach the strategies.

Finally, the study shows that knowing the meaning, the spelling, and/or the

grammatical gender of the words does not necessarily mean knowing how to use the words

accurately in a context. As Nation‟s (2001) word knowledge model suggests, knowledge of

form, meaning, and use are equally important in the vocabulary learning process (see Chapter

Two of the present thesis). Thus, it is also crucial to know the grammatical functions of the

words and the constraints on their use. Although the present thesis focuses on vocabulary, it

does not mean that grammar should be neglected. In fact, I do not view vocabulary as more

important than grammar or vice versa. I believe vocabulary and grammar are both crucial in

learning a foreign language. Nevertheless, for learners at the beginner‟s level, learning

vocabulary is the fundamental step. Vocabulary is a prerequisite for making grammar learning

possible.108

108

Hockett (1959) said that learners "require drill, drill, and more drill, and only enough vocabulary to make such

drills possible" (cited in Kamaravadivelu, 2006, p. 102).

268

7.2 Conclusions

Based on the findings from the present study, I draw the following conclusions which

are outlined in four points:

1. Vocabulary should not be left to the learners alone.

2. Learners should be well informed about vocabulary learning strategies and develop a

strategy inventory through strategy training.

3. Language instructors should be well informed about vocabulary learning strategies as well.

4. The language textbook should play an active role in strategy training.

First, vocabulary should not be neglected in the language instruction and left for the

students to handle on their own. One way of assisting learners to learn vocabulary is to inform

them about vocabulary learning strategies and to help them to develop a vocabulary learning

strategy inventory. The study shows that participants are not well informed about the

vocabulary learning strategies and language learning strategies in general. They do not know

what strategies they can use and how to use them in an efficient and sophisticated way. As

Kenny and Ian reveal, their primary and only strategy for memorization is repetition because

they do not know any other strategies. Further, even though repetition is the most commonly

used strategy, none of the participants knows about the advantages of the spacing effect. This

indicates that more information about learning strategies should be provided to language

learners.

Second, the study shows that language learners may not use the strategy when they are

introduced only briefly to it. For instance, in my study, the participants‟ instructor had briefly

introduced the color-coding strategy for memorizing the gender of German nouns in class.

Several vocabulary learning strategies are also mentioned in the textbook preface. However,

269

none of the participants use these methods in their studies because they either do not think that

they work for them, or they may not have read the preface of the textbook.

The findings above imply that introducing learning strategies only verbally and briefly

to students may not be sufficient, and that well-organized and planned learning strategy

training should be provided to language learners. As Nation (2001) emphasizes, “As with all

major vocabulary learning strategies, learners need to be brought to a level of skill and

confidence where they find it just as easy to use the strategy as not. If their grasp of the

strategy is unsure, then it will be rarely used” (p. 314).

Nation (2001, p. 222) proposes a guideline for planning training in vocabulary strategy

choice and use. The guideline involves four major steps:

1. deciding which strategies to be taught

2. deciding how much time to spend on training the learners in strategy use

3. working out a syllabus for each strategy that covers the required knowledge and provides

plenty of opportunity for increasingly independent practice

4. monitoring and providing feedback on learners‟ control of the strategies

In deciding which strategies should be taught (the first step above), in my opinion,

learners‟ proficiency level should be taken into account.109

As I have pointed out previously,

for discovering the meaning of unknown words, guessing from the context may not be very

easy for the language learners at the beginner‟s level. It is a strategy that may be more useful

for learners at a higher level. Learning how to use reference materials (especially dictionaries)

accurately is more urgent and relevant for beginners than guessing from the context.

Dictionaries are important not only for comprehension, but also for production (Nation, 2001,

109

Other factors such as learners‟ cultural background should also be considered (McDonough, 1995; Schmitt,

2000).

270

p. 281). They help the learners greatly to clarify uncertainty when the teachers are not around.

Last but not least, I would also like to suggest that learners should be warned about the

possible errors of guessing word meaning merely on the similarity in sound and spelling and

should be introduced to the concept of false friends.

As for consolidation strategies, stressing the effect of distributed practice, and teaching

the learners the ideas of elaboration to enhance their memory will be helpful not only for the

language beginners, but learners of all levels. Elaborative strategies consisting of several

cognitive steps, such as the keyword method, should be carefully taught because of their

complexity. In addition, teaching the learners how to take notes and organize their notes is

fundamental as this is usually the initial step of their learning process and the notes play a

significant role as a material for review and reference.110

With regard to deciding how much time to spend on strategy training, Nation (ibid.)

indicates that “there is little research to guide teachers in deciding how much time to spend on

strategy training, but it is certainly not sufficient to demonstrate and explain a strategy to

learners and then leave the rest to them” (p. 223). He suggests that “learners need to spend a

total at least four or five hours per strategy spread over several weeks” (p. 223).

As for working out a syllabus for teaching strategies, Nation emphasizes that a syllabus

is necessary for every single vocabulary learning strategy, especially for the complex ones. He

listed the following options for instructors to choose and sequence to fit learners‟ needs when

designing a syllabus (Nation, 2001, p. 223):

The teacher models the strategy for learners.

The steps in the strategy are practiced separately.

110

Refer to Kramsch (1979), Carroll and Mordaunt (1991), McComish (1990), Nation (2001), Schmitt and Schmitt

(1995) for more information and discussions on how to record words and monitor the recording, and how to make

vocabulary notebooks.

271

Learners apply the strategy in pairs supporting each other.

Learners report back on the application of the steps in the strategy.

Learners report on their difficulties and successes in using the strategy outside class time.

Teachers systematically test learners on strategy use and give them feedback.

Learners consult the teacher on their use of the strategy, seeking advice where necessary.

Obviously, the instructor plays a crucial role in strategy training. Hence, I want to stress

the importance that the language instructor also be well-informed about vocabulary learning

strategies. I agree with Takač (2008) that “teachers need to know which vocabulary learning

strategies exist and what form of knowledge and skills learners need to acquire in order to

successfully use each of them” (p. 78). After all, teachers are primarily responsible for

presenting the information.

The fourth conclusion from the study is concerned with the role of learning materials.

As the research results show, the participants rely heavily on the textbook Vorsprung as a

primary resource for learning German. In my opinion, learning materials should also play an

active role in developing learners‟ inventory of vocabulary learning strategies. The author(s) of

the language textbook should introduce a variety of vocabulary learning strategies to students,

and more importantly, integrate a series of activities in the book for the learners to practice

them. It is not enough to merely mention the strategies briefly in the preface, a section that

learners usually ignore. It will not only help the language learners, but will also assist the

language instructors when teaching strategies to the learners.

Certainly, it is also crucial to bear in mind that teaching strategies to learners does not

guarantee that they will definitely use the strategies in their learning processes afterwards.

However, in my opinion, this does not decrease the importance of ensuring that learners are

272

well informed about the various options they have and that learners should develop an

inventory of strategies to facilitate vocabulary and language learning.

7.3 Limitations of the Study

My study aims to explore the processes of vocabulary learning and provide a detailed

account of individual learners‟ use of vocabulary learning strategies. However, it does not aim

to look into every aspect that may affect the use of vocabulary learning strategies. There are

certainly limitations.

First of all, the study is not a longitudinal research. The research participants were

drawn only from the beginner‟s level (i.e., GER 101) and the empirical data were collected

only within the Fall term 2006. Investigating individual learners‟ use of vocabulary learning

strategies throughout a long period of time was not practically feasible. It would be of interest

to look at learners‟ development of vocabulary learning strategies as their language proficiency

level progresses.111

In fact, such a study has not been conducted in this field. In my opinion, it

could also be carried out in a case study framework with either a single case or multiple cases.

The second limitation of the present study is that it focuses mainly on the cognitive

aspects of vocabulary strategy use, and does not particularly examine the affective strategies

involving emotions, attitudes and motivations such as “lowering anxiety,” “motivating

oneself.” However, this does not mean that my study intends to deny the role of affect in the

learning process. For future research, it would certainly provide more insight into the

vocabulary learning processes to explore what learners do to lower their anxiety or motivate

themselves, and how these strategies affect their learning processes.

111

Nevertheless, in my opinion, one of the difficulties of carrying out a developmental research in a university

language classroom context lies in being able to recruit research participants who are sure to continue to take more

advanced language courses in the future. This was also a reason why I did not conduct a longitudinal study.

273

The third limitation stems from the design of the vocabulary activities. The to-be-

studied lexical items are presented on a list without context. This may have decreased the

chance that the strategy “guessing from the context” is used and be the reason why only one

participant actually uses this strategy.

Furthermore, the study does not show how the participants use vocabulary learning

strategies to study vocabulary and in their private residence, although I try to create a study

environment as close as possible to the participants‟ real study environment (e.g., the lexical

items derive from the Anlauftext; the participants are allowed to use the textbook, the

dictionary, and the course notes; no time limits is set for the study session … and so on).

Finally, I am aware of the limitations of using think-aloud protocols for my study. For

instance, participants may not report cognitive processes that are difficult to translate verbally

or mental operations that are done automatically, such as perceptual processes. Also, their

performance may be influenced due to the simultaneous demands of thinking and attending to

the task at the same time. However, so far, a “perfect” method for investigating the cognitive

processes has not been found. Every method has its strengths and limits. I chose to use think-

aloud because its merits outweigh the limitations and because it is the best option for my study.

7.4 Suggestions for Future Research

In regards to research methodologies, my study shows that the learners employ

vocabulary learning strategies differently, and vocabulary learning strategies are an area where

individual differences show. It supports Takač‟s (2008) view that “learning strategies are

indeed one of the individual learner characteristics, i.e., an area where language learners may

differ to a great extent” (p. 132). Takač (2008) also argues that “Vocabulary learning strategies

274

are highly idiosyncratic and need to be regarded accordingly” (p. 150). In my opinion, this

idiosyncrasy would be much more explicitly and fully explored if the researchers use a

combination of methods to collect data. Questionnaires and interviews are useful to elicit data

on what students think they do to learn vocabulary. Nevertheless, the study shows that

retrospective data explore only learners‟ beliefs which may not be a true reflection of what they

actually do when studying. Hence, it is important to have students complete vocabulary

activities and to see what they do during the activities. In my opinion, the purpose of making

students actually perform vocabulary activities is not to view learners as “suspects” and to

examine whether they did “tell the truth” or not. After all, as shown in my study, their use of

vocabulary may be affected by various factors such as the design of the vocabulary activities

and the lexical items they need to study, etc. The point of looking at how they actually study

vocabulary is to elicit a wealth of data, to gain more insights into how learners actually use

vocabulary learning strategies, and to shed more light on strategic characteristics. Thus it is

important to use a combination of data collection methods to make the data as complete as

possible.

As for prospective subjects for the future research, in addition to the suggestions of

conducting longitudinal developmental research and research on the role of affective strategies

described above, there are still many questions that need to be addressed. A few of these are:

The role of reference tools, particularly print dictionaries and electronic dictionaries: My

study does not focus to any great extent on learners‟ use of reference tools in various

learning situations, such as in reading activities. Investigation into this issue will help us

gain broader insight on the role of dictionaries in learners‟ learning processes. Also, using

online dictionaries is more and more common to language learners. There are many

275

websites offering these tools. They are easy to access and usually free of charge. It would be

interesting to investigate for instance: How do learners use the electronic dictionaries?

Which dictionary do they usually use? Why do they prefer using it? What do they do if the

dictionary offers more than one equivalent in English?

Strategy training: As I have indicated above, training is important for learners so that they

know what options there are and how to use the strategies effectively. It would be of interest

to explore how the training is carried out, what difficulties the learners and instructors

encounter during the training processes, the outcomes of the training, whether the learners

find the training useful at all, and if not, why not…. etc.

Finally, I want to make an appeal that it is important to continue conducting research on

vocabulary learning strategies. It will certainly lead to better understanding of the complex

processes of vocabulary learning and contribute to second/foreign language learning and

teaching.

276

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. M. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words.

(pp. 3-14). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching.

Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the mind. Oxford: Blackwell.

Albert, M. & Obler, L. K. (1979). The bilingual brain: neuro-psychological and

neurolinguistic aspects of bilingualism. New York: Academic Press.

Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research:

Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154.

Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic

knowledge in academic performance. Review of educational research, 58, 375-404.

Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. New York: Oxford University Press.

Allen, P. A., McNeal, M., & Kvak, D. (1992) Perhaps the lexicon is coded as a function of

word frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 826-844.

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of

decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27-33.

Anderson, J. P., & Jordan, A. M. (1928). Learning and retention of Latin words and phrases.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 485-496.

Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University

Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.

277

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.

Anderson, N. J., & Vandegrift, L. (1996). Increasing metacognitive awareness in the L2

classroom by using think-aloud protocols and other verbal report formats. In R. L.

Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the word: Cross cultural

perspectives (pp. 3-18). University of Hawaii at Manoa: Second language teaching and

curriculum center technical report 13.

Arnaud, P. J. L., & Savignon, S. J. (1997). Rare words, complex lexical units and the advanced

learner. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.

157-173). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist,

30, 821-828.

Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to

the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human

Learning and Memory, 104,126-133.

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control

processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and

motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2). New Yoirk: Academic Press.

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psycholgoy: A cogntive view.

New York; Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.

Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

278

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends

in cognitive science, 4 (11), 417-423.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology

of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.

Bahns, J. (1997). Kollokationen und Wortschatzarbeit im Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.

Bahrick, H. P. (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for

Spanish learned in school. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 1-29.

Bahrick, H. P., & Phelps, E. (1987). Retention of Spanish vocabulary over 8 years. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 344-349.

Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational

Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6,

253-279.

Baumann, J., & Kame‟enui, E. (2004). Vocabulary instruction. Research to practice. NY: The

Guilford Press.

Bausch, K. R., Christ, H., Königs, F. G., & Krumm, H. J. (Eds.). (1995). Erwerb und

Vermittlung von Wortschatz im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Arbeitspapiere der 15.

Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr.

Bayerlein, O. (1997). Erwerb und Vermittlung von Wortschatz. Ein Beitrag zur Verbesserung

des Unterrichts in Deutsch als Fremdsprache an japanischen Hochschulen. München:

Iudicium.

279

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson.

Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley and

Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bialystock, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern

Language Journal, 65, 24-35.

Bialystock, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication

strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication

(pp. 100-118). London: Longman.

Bierwisch, M. (1970). Semantics. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (Vol. 1, pp.

166-185). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

Bloom, K. C., & Shell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning

and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74,

245-248.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.

Bohn, R. (1999). Probleme der Wortschatzarbeit. München: Langenscheidt.

Bourne, L. E., Dominowski, R. L, Loftus, E. F., & Healy, A. F. (1986). Cognitive processes.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bower, G. H. (1994). Some relations between emotions and memory. In P. Ekman & R. J.

Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 303-305). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive

Psychology, 13, 207-230.

280

Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 10, 12-21.

Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Brown, C., & Payne, M. E. (1994). Five essential steps of processes in vocabulary learning.

Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.

Bussmann, H. (1998). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.

Carmichael, C. A., & Hayes, B. K. (2001). Prior knowledge and exemplar encoding in

children‟s concept acquisition, Child Development, 72, 1071-1090.

Carr, T. H., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structures sequences:

Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205-230.

Carroll, D. (2004). Psychology of language. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Carroll, M. C., & Mordaunt, O. G. (1991). The frontier method of vocabulary practice. TESOL

Journal, 1, 23-26.

Carter, R. (1986). Core vocabulary and discourse in the curriculum: a question of the subject.

RELC Journal, 17 (1), 52-70.

Carter, R. (1988). Vocabulary, cloze and discourse. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.),

Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 161-180). London: Longman.

Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary. Applied linguistic perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1988) Vocabulary and language teaching. London:

Longman.

281

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2003). The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic.

Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin

(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall International.

Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P.

Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 25-43). Harlow, England:

Longman.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategies research and teaching. Electronic

Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26. Retrieved February 01, 2008,

from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v1n12004/chamot.pdf

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies

handbook. London: Longman.

Chapelle, C., & Duff, P. (Eds.). (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and

qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 157-178.

Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M.

Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of writings (pp. 109-126).

Boston: Little, Brown.

Chesterfield, R., & Chesterfield, H. B. (1985). Natural order in children‟s use of second

language learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 45-59.

Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations:

how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science,

13, 145–182.

282

Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention, considerations,

interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 36-39.

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. (1987). Studying learner strategies: How do we get the information. In A. L.

Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 31-40).

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall International.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 3 (2), 221-236.

Cohen, A. D., & Scott, K. (1996). A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning

strategies. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the word: Cross

cultural perspectives (pp. 89-108). University of Hawaii at Manoa: Second language

teaching and curriculum center technical report 13.

Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. F., & Li, T. (1998). The impact of strategic-based instruction on

speaking a foreign language. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a

second language (pp. 107-56). London: Longman.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.

Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.

Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.

Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1972). How to make a language user. In E. Tulving & W.

Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 309-351). New York: Academic Press.

283

Coltheart, M., Lea, C. D., & Thompson, K. (1974). In defence of iconic memory. Quarterly

Journal o Experimental Psychology, 26, 663-641.

Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from

prose. In M. Pressley & L. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive Strategy Research (pp. 83-131).

New York: Springer Verlag.

Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Craik, F. I. M. (1999). Levels of encoding and retrieval. In B. H. Challis & B. H. Velichkovsky

(Eds.), Stratification in cognition and consciousness (pp. 97-104). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present ... and future? Memory, 10, 305-318.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory

research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in

episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.

Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. Journal

of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 599-607.

De Florio-Hansen, I. (1994). Vom Reden über Wörter. Vokabelerklärungen im

Italienischunterricht mit Erwachsenen. Tübingen: Narr.

De Groot, A. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: support for a mixed-

representational system. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp.

27-51). John Benjamins: Amsterdam-Philadelphia.

284

De Groot, A. (1995). Determinants of bilingual lexicosemantic organisation. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 8, 151-180.

De Groot, A., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in

compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90-123.

Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentation on vocabulary

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 162-170.

Desrochers, A., Gelinas, C., & Wieland, L. D. (1989). An application of the mnemonic

keyword method to the acquisition of German nouns and their grammatical gender.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 25-32.

Desrochers, A., Wieland, L. D., & Coté, M. (1991). Instructional effects in the use of the

mnemonic keyword method for learning German nouns and their grammatical gender.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 19-36.

Dörner, D. (1996). Gedächtnis. In D. Dörner & H. Selg (Eds.), Psychologie. Eine Einführung

in ihre Grundlagen und Anwendungsfelder (pp. 161-176). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. Construction,

Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, H. C., & Hunt, R. R. (1983). Fundamentals of human memory and cognition. Dubuque,

IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Ellis, N. (1994). Consciousness in second language learning: psychological perspectives on the

role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37-56.

285

Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language vocabulary:

Imagery keyword mediators and phonological short term memory. Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 46A(3), 533-558.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erdelyi, M. H. (1985). Psychoanalysis: Freud‟s cognitive psychology. New York: W. H.

Freeman.

Erdelyi, M. H., & Goldberg, B. (1979). Let‟s not sweep repression under the rug: Toward a

cognitive psychology of repression. In J. F. Kihlstrom & F. J. Evans (Eds.), Functional

disorders of memory (pp. 355-402). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ericsson K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language research. Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: differences in study

processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54.

Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to check-list views of meaning. Proceedings of the 1st

Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131.

Freud, S. (1901/1960) The psycho-pathology of everyday life. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 6).

London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1905/1953) Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 7).

London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1924). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Boni & Liveright.

286

Freud, S. (1940). An outline of psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 21,

27-84.

Fu, I.-P. P. (2005). Student approaches to learning Chinese vocabulary. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

Gairns, R., & Redmann, S. (1986). Working with words. A guide to teaching and learning

vocabulary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Geeraerts, D. (1988). Katz revisited: aspects of the history of lexical semantics. In W. Hüllen

& R. Schulze (Eds.), Understanding the lexicon (pp. 23-35). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press.

Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural

environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-332.

Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension

strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 124-147.

Goh, C. C. M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns.

System, 30(2), 185-206.

Goh, C. C. M. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development:

Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188-213.

Green, D. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: a framework and model for the control of

speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210-223.

287

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning

outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.

Haberlandt, K. (1999). Human memory: Explorations and application. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers coaching of learning and

its relation to students‟ strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 342-

348.

Harley, T. (1995). The psychology of language. From data to theory. UK: Erlbaum.

Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (2000). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hettena , C. M., & Ballif, B. L. (1981). Effects of mood on learning. Journal of Educational


Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Bringing

research to practice. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An

introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The

case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hocket, C. F. (1959). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.

Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students‟ strategies. Foreign

Language Annals, 9(2), 117-129.

288

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and

non-successful language learners. System, 5, 110-123.

Hosenfeld, C. (1979). A learning-teaching view of second language instruction. Foreign

Language Annals, 12, 51-54.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (1994). Consciousness and second language learning:

Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching,

Thematic issue of AILA Review.

Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1973). Recall for words as a function of semantic, graphic, and

syntactic orienting tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 471-480.

Isen, A., Daubman, K. A., & Gorgoglione, J. M. (1987). The influence of positive affect on

cognitive organization: Implications for education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.),

Aptitude, learning and instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 143-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

Jessner, U. (1996). Towards a dynamic view of multilingualism. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language

choices: conditions, constraints, and consequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jin, Y.-S. (1990). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming in lexical decisions.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1139-1154.

Jones, B. P. (1993). Repression: The evolution of a psychoanalytic concept from the 1890‟s to

1990‟s. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41(1), 63-93.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method.

New York: Routledge.

Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210.

289

Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (Eds.). (1964). The structure of language. Englewoord-Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Kemmeter, L. (1999). Multilingual gestütztes Vokabellernen im gymnasialen

Englischunterricht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kennedy, G. (1990). Collocations: Where grammar and vocabulary teaching meet. In S.

Anivan (Ed.), Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties (pp. 215-229).

Singapore: RELC.

Kirsner, K., Smith, M. C., Lockhart, R., & Jain, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: language-

specific units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 23, 519-539.

Kleiber, G. (1998). Prototypensemantik. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.

Kopleck, H. et al. (Eds.). (2001). Collins easy learning German dictionary. Glasgow:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Kramsch, C. J. (1979). Word watching: Learning vocabulary becomes a hobby. Foreign

Language Annals, 12(2), 153-158.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamom.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. J. Bailey & R. W. Shuy

(Eds.), New ways of analyzing variations in English (pp. 340-373). Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.

290

Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition

research. London: Longman.

Larousse Editors. (2001). Larousse Pocket Dictionary: German-English English-German.

Paris: Larousse.

Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language

students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135.

Leow, R., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of

reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

26(1), 35-57.

Levenston, E. (1979). Second language vocabulary acquisition: Issues and problems. The

Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4(2), 147-160.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative communication research method. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on

a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 87-112.

Löschmann, M. (1993). Effiziente Wortschatzarbeit. Alte und neue Wege. Arbeit am

Wortschatz; integrativ, kommunikativ, interkulturell, kognitiv, kreativ. Frankfurt am

Main: Lang.

Loftus, E. F., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the human

brain. American Psychology, 35, 409-420.

Lovik, T. A., Guy, J. D., & Chavez, M. (2002). Vorsprung (2nd ed.). Instructor‟s annotated

edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

291

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI

model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational

Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.

McCarthy, M. (1992). Interactive lexis: prominence and paradigms. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),

Advances in spoken discourse (pp. 197-208). London: Routledge.

McComish, J. (1990). The word spider: A technique for academic vocabulary learning in

curriculum areas. Guidelines, 12, 26-36.

McCormack, P. D. (1977). Bilingual linguistic memory: the independent/interdependence issue

revisited. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: psychological, social and educational

implications (pp. 57-66). New York: Academic Press.

McDonough, S. H. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London: Edward

Arnold.

McDonough, S. H. (1999). Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32(1), 1-18.

McGregor, J. M. (2006). Learner beliefs and their implications for language learning.

Unpublished master‟s thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

McKeown, M. G., & Curtis, M. E. (Eds.). (1987). The nature of vocabulary acquisition.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meara, P. (1982). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. In V.

Kinsella (Ed.), Language teaching. Surveys 1 (pp. 100-126). Cambridge, England:


Meara, P. (1987). Vocabulary in a second language. (Vol. 2). London: Centre for Information

on Language Teaching and Research (CILT).

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

292

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Müller, B. D. (1994). Wortschatzarbeit und Bedeutungsvermittlung. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

Müller, G. E., & Pilzecker, A. (1900). Experimentelle Beiträge zur Lehre vom Gedächtnis.

Zeitschrift für Psychologie, Ergänzungsband 1, 1-300.

Murphy, G. L. (1991). Meaning and concept. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of

word meanings (pp. 11- 35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In

N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and

Pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner.

Research in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education.

Nairne, J., Lindsay, S., Paulhus, D., & Smith, M. (2004). Psychology. The adaptive mind.

Toronto, Canada: Nelson.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, Mass: Newbury House.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England:


Neveling, C. (2004). Wörterlernen mit Wörternetzen. Eine Untersuchung zu Wörternetzen als

Lernstrategie und als Forschungsverfahren. Tübingen: Narr.

Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use:

Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. The Modern

Language Journal, 77, 11-22.

293

Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing

classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561–570.

O‟Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985).

Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language

Learning, 35(1), 21-46.

O‟Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.


Ormrod, J. (2008). Human learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the inadequacy of prototype theory as a theory of

concepts. Cognition, 9, 35-58.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New

York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural

perspectives. University of Hawaii at Manoa: Second language teaching and curriculum

center technical report 13.

Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies

worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.

System, 23(2), 153–175.

Palmer, D. J., & Goetz, E. T. (1988). Selection and use of study strategies: The role of the

student‟s beliefs about self and strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A.

Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and

evaluation (pp. 41-61). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

294

Penfield, W. (1958). Some mechanisms of consciousness discovered during electrical

stimulation of the brain. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, 44, 51-56.

Penfield, W. (1969). Consciousness, memory, and man‟s conditioned reflexes. In K. Pribram

(Ed.), On the biology of learning (pp. 129-168). New York, Chicago, San Francisco,

Atlanta: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual items. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.

Porte, G. (1986). The learning techniques of underachieving EFL students. Unpublished

master‟s thesis, University College of North Wales, Bangor, UK.

Porte, G. (1988). Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new vocabulary.

ELT Journal, 42(3), 167-172.

Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2006). Cognitive strategies: Production deficiencies and successful

strategy instruction everywhere. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn,

& R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception,

and language. New York: Wiley.

Prokop, M. (1989). Learning strategies for second language users: an analytical appraisal

with case studies. Wales, United Kingdom: Edwin Mellen Press.

Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational

Researcher, 41, 147-160.

Purpura, J. (1994). The role of learner strategies in language learning and testing. Paper given

at the Thai TESOL Conference, Bangkok, January, 1994.

295

Purpura, J. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests. A structural

equation modelling approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Reisberg, D. (1997). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York: Norton.

Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics.

London: Longman.

Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richardson, L., & St Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959-978). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ridley, J. (1997). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Philadelphia:

Multilingual Matters.

Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of

semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 1-20.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Rosch, E. (1973a). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E.

Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144).

New York: Academic Press.

Rosch, E. (1973b). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.

296

Rosch, E. (1974). Linguistic relativity. In A. Silverstein (Ed.), Human communication:

Theoretical explorations (pp. 95-121). New York: Halsted Press.

Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547.

Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.

Rosch, E. (1977). Human Categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural

psychology (pp. 1-49). London: Academic Press.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and

categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of

categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in

natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-436.

Ross, B. H., & Spalding, T. L. (1994). Concepts and categories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 12. Thinking and problem solving (pp.

119-148). San Diego: Academic Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the „good language learner‟ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1981). The study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 2, 117-131.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research, history, and typology.

In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-

30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

297

Sanaoui, R. (1992). Vocabulary learning and teaching in French as a second language

classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada.

Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners‟ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages.

The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 15-28.

Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and neuroscience.

American Psychologist, 54, 182-203.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology.


Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. E Weinstein, E. T.

Goetz & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment,

Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 171-191). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of

attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in

foreign language learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 1-63). Honolulu Hawaii:

University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Centre.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),

Vocabulary. Description, acquisition and pedagogic (pp. 199-227). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

Language Education.

298

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Indentifying and assessing vocabulary learning strategies.

Thai TESOL Bulletin, 5(4), 27-33.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and

practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49(2), 133-143.

Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and

pedagogy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schooler, J. W. (2001). Discovering memories of abuse in the light of meta-awareness. Journal

of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 4, 105-136.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwarz, N., & Skurnik, I. (2003). Feeling and thinking: Implications for problem solving. In J.

E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 263-290).


Seibert, L. C. (1927). An experiment in learning French vocabulary. Journal of Educational


Seibert, L. C. (1930). An experiment on the relative efficiency of studying French vocabulary

in associated pairs versus studying French vocabulary in context. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 21, 297-314.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education

and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Günthner, S., Meier, C.,

Quasthoff, U., Schlobinski, P., Uhmann, S. (1998). Gesprächsanalytisches

Transkriptionssystem. Linguistische Berichte, 173, 91-122.

299

Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Children‟s thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge, England:


Singleton, D. (2000). Language and the lexicon. An introduction. London: Arnold.

Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604.

Smith, E., & Kosslyn, S. (2007). Cognitive psychology. Mind and brain. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A

feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.

Snowman, J. (1984). Learning tactics and strategies. In G. D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),

Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking and problem solving (pp. 243-

276). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Soanes, C., Hawker, S. (Eds.). (2005). Compact Oxford English dictionary of current English.

(3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern

Language Review, 34, 304-318.

300

Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. London: Oxford University Press.

Stoffer, I. (1995). University language students‟ choice of vocabulary learning strategies as

related to individual difference variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Alabama, Alabama.

Stork, A. (2003). Vokabellernen. Eine Einführung zur Effizienz von Vokabellernstrategien.

Tübingen: Narr.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Takač, V. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly,

15(3), 285-295.

Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Tulving, E. (1986). What kind of a hypothesis is the distinction between episodic and semantic

memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12,

307-311.

Tulving, E. (1993). What is episodic memory? Current Directions in Psychological Science,

2(3), 67-70.

Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in

episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373.

301

van Someren, M. W, Barnard, Y., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method - a practical

approach to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Vintere, P., Hemmes, N. S., Brown, B. L., & Poulson, C. L. (2004). Gross-moter skill

acquisition by preschool dance students under self-instruction procedures. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 305-322.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1965). Thought and language. New York: Wiley.

Wallace, M. (1982). Teaching vocabulary. London: Heinemann.

Watkins, M. (2002). Limits and province of levels of processing: Considerations of a construct.

Memory, 10, 339–343.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Language in contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.

Weiss, M. R., & Klint, K. A. (1987). “Show and tell” in gymnasium: An investigation of

developmental differences in modeling and verbal rehearsal of motor skills. Research

Quaterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 234-241.

Weiten, W. (2004). Psychology. Themes & Variations. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Wenden, A. L. (1987a). Conceptual background and utility. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),

Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 3-14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. L. (1987b). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. L. Wenden & J.

Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 159-168). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

302

Wenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning.


Wenden, A. L. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. P.

Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 44-64). Harlow, England:

Longman.

Wermke, M., & Scholze Stubenrecht, W. (Eds.). (1996). Duden Deutsches Universal

Wörterbuch (3rd

Edition). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in

Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203–243.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans). Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Wilson, B. L., & Corbett, H. D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the

teachers they want. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Wong, M. S. L. (2005). Language learning strategies and language self-efficacy: Investigating

the relationship in Malaysia. RELC, 36(3), 245-269.

Zhang, G. (2001). Zur Vermittlung von Lexik im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Am Beispiel des

Deutschen als Fremdsprache für chinesische Lerner. Aachen: Shaker.

303

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1

304

Language Learning Questionnaire 1

I. Personal information

Name: _____________________________ Age: _______ Sex: F M

Email address (for contact purposes):

______________________________________________________

II. Your language background

1. What is your mother tongue? English French Other: _________________

2. Besides German, are you also taking other language courses in this term? yes no

If yes, please specify which language course it is: ___________________________

3. Before taking this German course, have you ever learned any other foreign languages in a

classroom setting? How long have you learned the language(s)? How fluent are you in the

language(s)?

Language

Classes Taken

Overall Proficiency

(excellent–good–fair– poor) For how long?

i)

ii)

iii)

4. Other languages spoken (learned outside of a classroom setting):

Language Overall Proficiency

(excellent–good–fair– poor) Ho did you learn it?

305

III. Your language learning profile.

1. Why did you decide to take German 101? (check all that apply)

interested in the language

interested in the culture

have friends who speak the

language

required to take course to graduate

need it for my future career

need it for travelling purposes

other (please specify): __________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

2. I believe learning a foreign language is:

very important important not so important not important at all

3. It is …. for me to become proficient in German.

very important important not so important not important at all

4. I have had … with language learning in the past.

bad experiences OK experiences good experiences

5. I am … of speaking a foreign language. scared of not scared

6. In general, I would say that I am a … language learner.

very good above average average below average very weak

7. I usually study: alone with friends/family members

8. In the language classroom, I prefer: to work in a group to work on my own.

9. I use paper and pens/pencils/markers to write down notes while learning. Yes No

10. The textbook is usually my only resource of language learning. Yes No

11. I use computer programs to facilitate language learning. Yes No

12. I have other contact with the German language outside this German 101 course, such as

listening to German music, watching German movies….etc.? Yes No

If yes, please specify: ____________________________________________________

13. I study regularly only before the quizzes/exams.

14. I do the homework

all the time sometimes only when I need to hand it in to the instructor.

15. I think that having a good instructor for learning a language is:

important, because not important, because

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

306

Appendix B: Questionnaire 2

307

Language Learning Questionnaire 2

NAME: __________________________

1. My experience of learning German vocabulary so far has been:

difficult not so difficult easy very easy

Please explain why:

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

2. How do you discover the meaning of unknown words in German?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

3. How do you memorize the meaning of the German words?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

4. How do you memorize the spelling of German words?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5. How do you memorize the gender of German nouns?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

6. How do you learn the pronunciation of German words? How do you improve your

pronunciation?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

7. How do you improve your German vocabulary size? (E.g., reading German

newspapers/books, have a German pen pal, practice with Germans…and so on)

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

308

Appendix C: Materials for the Vocabulary Activities

309

Word list study

You have been introduced to the words/phrases below in the Anlauftext of Chapter 3 in Vorsprung. You are now asked to study those words, and remember their meaning and spelling. If it is a noun, you also need to remember its gender. You can use the dictionary, the textbook and your notes.

01. essen* (er isst)

02. der Bahnhof

03. wahrscheinlich


05. das Gepäck

06. wandern

07. bleiben

08. der Kaugummi

09. der Mund

10. tragen* (er trägt)

11. lächeln

12. der Fußball

13. die Schuhe

14. das Bier

15. mitbringen

16. fernsehen* (er sieht fern)

17. die Politik

18. das Wochenende

19. vielleicht

20. verstehen von (etwas)

21. halten* von (etwas) (er hält)

22. nur Bahnhof verstehen

The * sign indicates that the verb is a strong verb. Its conjugation for the 3rd person singular is provided in parentheses in italic.

310

Quiz

Write the German equivalents in the blank. If it is a noun, write the gender as well.

to eat _______________________

to wear _______________________

probably _______________________

train station _______________________

chewing gum _______________________

to smile _______________________

luggage _______________________

to stay _______________________

to understand nothing _______________________

to hike; go hiking _______________________

weekend _______________________

to think of (something) _______________________

to bring along _______________________

mouth _______________________

311

Folow-up activity 1

Do you see the words that you have just studied? Find at least 10 of them!

A W O C H E N E N D E B C B F M

S T C F I N U I A O T H E L Ä G

G E Ä Ö F V R ß G T R A G E N H

H S C H U H E I E I V L Ö I H B

N W E T ß E V D P ß Ü T E B F V

K A Q G B M Ö O Ä I F E T E H I

V H U E A N F T C N G N U N O E

E R P O L I T I K Ä Q B I E R L

R S T Q L Ä C H E L N F T Q E L

S C H W E I N E F L E I S C H E

T H I ß K A U G U M M I G Ü B I

E E S S B Ü R O V Q U W T Q O C

H I F E R N S E H E N A R T F H

E N A Ü C D B S M ß D N Ä V ß T

N L G H H T D S J B T D O E P G

M I T B R I N G E N K E R Ä Ö M

D C Ä Ö H J A N L H G R T ß B H

C H G J E K O M B A H N H O F D

312

Follow-up activity 2 Find the match! Which sentence describes the picture correctly? Write the number of the picture in the blank.

1. Muslime essen kein Schweinefleisch. Bild _______

2. Die Deutschen spielen gern Fußball und trinken gern Bier. Bild _______

3. Das kleine Mädchen trägt gern T-Shirts und Shorts. Bild _______

4. Der Mann bringt viel Gepäck mit. Bild _______

5. Der Junge sieht den ganzen Tag nur fern. Bild _______

6. Laura und Bill wandern sehr gern. Bild _______

7. Anna ist sehr freundlich. Sie lächelt immer. Bild _______

313

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

314

Follow-up activity 3

Typischer Kanadier/Typische Kanadierin What comes to your mind when you think of “typischer Kanadier/typische Kanadierin” ? For example, what does a typical Canadian eat, drink, wear, and read? What about sports and music? The language(s) he/she speaks? Write down as many words or phrases as possible in the circles below.

315

Follow-up activity 4

Typischer Kanadier/Typische Kanadierin Use the words/phrases that you wrote in Activity 3 to write a short text about “typical Canadians.”

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Download - Learning German Vocabulary: An Investigation into Learners

Top Related